jackson, but you're not going to see the point that i'm trying to make. the point is that both of them when they came in this world would have been considered at-risk kids. these sons of america would have been considered at-risk kids. ..

>> he put a moratorium on foreclosures on farms or now where i'm from that community activist. do you understand what i mean? it's very much the same spirit as reverend jackson. but what would i say about reverend jackson in my introduction of him? reverend jackson gave me the opportunity to make the country my backyard. i understand where every hammer is because he allowed me to see it and i will duffers understand, i will always number one thing he told me.

we were on a train going from dc to new york. and he was tired because we had just got off a redeye from la. and he asked me to look ahead and there was a family there. he asked me to discuss what i thought. and then he came back to me and he said, the reason that you are here is that you have to understand how to negotiate the systems. people have talked about me and my entourage for years. but people don't realize they were filled with kids like you that i am showing the country to i'm trying to teach how to become a leader. because you're not born a leader. you are trained. they don't realize that this quote on quote entourage, his entourage that a field trip throughout the world, people say they want to be a fly on the

wall but having spent time with the reverend health might leadership immensely because he allowed me to see how he made decisions when the responsibility was mine. do you understand what i mean? and now that the responsibility is mine, i don't fret from that as i've watched him do it with dignity and respect. so without further ado, the man who has made the world a very small place, the man who has trained me, and just one of the most, i'm trying to get teary-eyed, but a gentleman of high regard i love very much, reverend jesse jackson. [applause] >> thank you.

let me thank you for who is now doctor joe leonard who went on to his high degree and has, he made the case early on to teach what you don't know. you can't lead where you don't go. i watched someone drop out of college pursue doing civil rights, that was our passion for most of us coming out of jail during that period, committed to do whatever was required. and every comment may involve marching, risking one's life when we decide to go for it. so i told at that time, university president, i will advise you to be prepared to live for the struggle, not just

die for it. don't die in it, but die for it. you have a much contribution. and dying is easy. living is difficult or peacefully is even more difficult. so the decision you must make is to be a student in the movement or student of it. and you cannot be a student of it unless you study it. and in your experiences with academic involvement and your appreciation of it. in that vein of thought, joe, a young aspiring activist, never stopped going to school. got his phd now, and now is ready to serve our nation at the highest levels. joe, you represent the best of our youth investment. let's give joe another hand. [applause]

>> from outstanding dies, participants today, about to introduce in a few moments, this is the occasion of the rainbow push coalition. today we are all a bit disoriented because of the death of michael jackson. he was so meaningful to us, as an organization, as a community. i remember in 1967 just after mayor hatcher became mayor, this group of kids and their dad performed at mayor hatcher's inauguration. that was the jackson five. i remember a couple years later martin luther king being killed in 1968, a mistake i almost made which i forever, have never forgiven myself so far.

we were preparing expo, and we had this huge line up, you know, sammy davis junior and quincy jones and nancy wilson and the four tops, who were all ready for the big event. so junior griffin used to work for doctor king and motown has said there was a group performing across the street. and the weekly theater. a group of kids and you should let them sit on the program. junior said you're leaning on our friendship, but there is no room for these kids. the program was full and the superstars are in town. he said well, you know, they want to see you so bad, see your afro. [laughter] >> just to meet and greet them. then it was their father in a station wagon, with their guitars and drums in a station

wagon. reverend, can we please but dissipate? i couldn't say no and didn't know what to do. is set up in the afternoon matinee for the kids. needless to say michael did his abc number and it kept on going. [applause] >> but to go from those conditions and challenges to become the top entertainer in the history of the world to announce that michael was dead, the revolution left the front page of the americas and the newspapers. it was on the back burner for a moment. government policy, michael jackson impact has been a cultural revolution of the dimensions we have not yet figured out. is just huge how god used that talent, that young man to change

the world. and we are glad about that. we were blessed this past friday, out to meet ms. catherine and mr. joe as they are in a state of grief and shock. i worked with them close to the last few years working on his business interests, in his catalog was paul mccartney and the beatles. within that catalog was elvis presley on the back, and he bought it in the bidding and he bought it. he gave a little richard is back because he felt he had been cheated and deprived. he had that kind of acute sensitivity. and he was able to leverage his capital to keep his catalog. and then having survived challenges on his way back, and the joy wasn't that, and within an hour or 50, venues have been

sold out in london, asia was lined up to be next and in the u.s.a. his health was very strong. he was training three hours a day with a trainer. and then dancing, and one of the old dancers said he was out dancing. he was along on his way and then something happened. is midday became midnight. what happened and is now a matter of mystery and investigation. but our hearts rejoice at what he has and means to us. so we lost our joy. he has lost his pain. and now we have his legacy. and what a legacy. briefly, on our convention, on yesterday the focus was on the state of civil rights. it has been challenged by the supreme court with some modification on section two, section five at least at this time around.

it will come up for challenge, really maybe as early as tomorrow for example. a whole range of things, including student loans, students are paying a hundred billion dollars a year in student loans, a billion dollars a year. banks can get 0% money. the government can get 1% money and students are paying eight to 20% money. and so if banks can get 0% money, why can't students get 0% money. we have gone from grants to loans. we have gone from education as an investment to as a commodity. so we are fighting that fight to reduce the student loan rate. we further argue, you are born, xp, 18 days citizen should be registered to vote at 18. so we were pressing that kind of issue yesterday. felons who have served their

time should come back home and have the right to vote. in the south, there are six other states, the ones that are all black men, lost their rights to vote permanently based upon the system of undermining. today, i want to bring to you secretary of agriculture. i have been asked more than one time why the secretary of agriculture. we are not country people. i want you to come to hear one, tom vilsack as governor, was a man who brought vision integrates into the decency. a very smart person. that's a very different position to send a message to the nation about what the department of agriculture is, what it does. and to make the dreams of our administration, a good administration become real. there's been a great concern, mr. secretary, that stimulus is getting out. it's not getting down.

it's wandering. its leaves. wandering not the roads. in part because of the bank bailout. to get it down the way it should be. for some stands how to concerns in this agenda. we know that the intent of the administration to reach those bostock at the bottom and lift them up so far it's not happening. it's going to take a combination of our pool and tug to make it happen. to make it happen we want to make it happen, to deal with the growth of poverty in our country. chicago, free lunch programs. they need a free breakfast program as well, for example. those who are malnourished, who don't see well, can't hear well, don't learn well. it is all about this department of the u.s. department of agriculture is not just about beans and corn. it is a gigantic department.

before that it was a tie. before it was an hhs and that was the department of agriculture. if millions dimensions i'm convinced most of us have no idea what these are. they met with these mayors around the nation to go straight ahead or commerce or hhs, and don't access it. i close by saying in this administration, we have the opportunity to relate to government a new relationship to us, but we have to know how to work it. and know where resources are. and we had in this secretary, a man who wants to do something big. he comes from rural america. and rural america at the same time, i governor from iowa, who understands des moines and greenfield. he understands the highs and lows of the need to feed the

hungry. so all the stuff is in this department, the housing, libraries and schools and roads and bridges. all that stuff is in this department. so, mr. secretary, we meet with you today and kind of band the setting to listen to you share with us and let some of those on the panel asked some of their questions. i intend to leave his life to go back around the country and to make your department very busy. the secretary of agriculture, mr. tom vilsack. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. reverend jackson, thank you very much. let me first and foremost say how privileged i am to be here today. and how appreciative i am of the opportunity to spend a few

minutes with you. the last time we spoke, i'm sure you would not have remembered this, but i was governor and i had just signed an executive order giving ex-felons the right to vote. [applause] >> and it was because of your leadership on the voting rights issue that we became aware that the fact that iowa was one of those seven states at the time that did not automatically restore the rights. and i want to thank you for that ear it made a difference. i can tell you how many e-mails and letters i received from ex-felons whose lives had been turned around who felt that they were complete and whole individuals, and once again part of society because they had the most significant privilege of american citizenship, the right to participate in the government. [applause]

>> and i want to thank all the people who are here today who i think share reverend jackson's commitment to those who were powerless, to those who are hungry and need food, to those who are homeless and need a home, to those who are unemployed and need a job. and i'm here today to talk to you for just a few minutes about how usda can help you do the work of the rainbow push coalition. abraham lincoln established this department in 1862. and when he did, he deemed it the people's department. it was his belief that the usda's responsibility was to impact and affect people in their everyday life. and as the reverend has suggested we are most often thought of as a department of about and for farmers and ranchers, and clearly they are an important aspect of our job. but in the obama administration, the president has challenged us to expand the work of the usda.

so today we'd like to think of ourselves as of the everyday, every way usda. and i say that because we impact and affect people's lives at various points in time. if you live in a rural community today, if you live in the outskirts of an urban center today, you may very well be living in a home that was purchased with a usda loan. when you turn on the fossett and take a drink of water, you may very well be drinking water from a water treatment facility that was financed i usda. when you fill up your tank to drive to work, you very well may be filling your tank with a biofuel that was sponsored and supported by usda. when you turn on the lights in your home or at your business, the chances are pretty good that you probably have that electricity and power as a result of a usda investment in rural utilities service. if you have a computer and you

are linked to broadband and have access to the world wide web, you most likely probably received some assistance from usda to have access to broadband. we are an everyday, every weight department. most of our money, two thirds of our budget, is spent on food assistance. we run the snap program, the supplemental assistance program. one out of every five families in the united states is affected and impacted by that program. it is one of the most direct stimulus is that we can determine and find in the stuff in difficult times. as we try to transition folks from bad times to better times. food is important. people want to be able to feed their families. the additional money that was put in a seamless package by th president and by congress enables a family of four to receive about $80 a month more in food assistance. 97% of those dollars are spent in the first 30 days. and every single dollar that is

that generates another dollar $0.84 economic activity. so it creates jobs in an immediate way. we are in charge of the wic program. women, infants nutrition program. and this year we are encouraging a new set of foods to be part of that program so that we encourage more nutritious diets for women and infant children. the reverend mentioned the school breakfast and school lunch program. that's also under our responsibility of the usda. and this year is a very important year. for all those who are concerned about making sure that every child is fed and well fed and every child has a capacity to learn, because they are well fed. this is the year that those programs are reauthorized by congress here and we will need your help as the obama administration is asking for a billion dollars more in that program, to expand access to make it easier for young people to qualify and to increase the nutritional value of those meals. so that youngsters can be better learners.

we also have programs in childcare facilities and adult day care facilities. this year as a result of the stimulus package in just the chicagoland area, over the course of the next 12 to 18 months about a half a billion dollars will be invested just in those food assistance programs from stimulus money. just in this area. it's an extraordinary investment in an important investment but it's not the only thing we do. i mentioned the fact that if you own a home or want to own a home and rule america, the chances are pretty good if you have a hard time getting a loan at a commercial bank you might be able to qualify for one of the 70000 home loans that the usda puts out every single year. if you are looking for community facilities in your small town, if you want to build a dental clinic or a hospital or a mental health center or a library or a museum, usda can provide resources. if you're interested in making sure that you have proper infrastructure so that you can attract business and to your

community usda can help finance it. and finally if you want to help a small business get started, if you want to create a series of jobs in small communities, usda has loan programs and grant programs to make it happen. we are the fifth largest department of the federal government. our budget is $113 billion. we have 103,000 people who work for the usda. we have representatives in offices in virtually every county of the united states of america. we have 2250 foreign service officers in counties across the country and over 850 rural development office is. we also by the way run the forest service. and if you happen to live in the western part of the united states, your water is directly linked to how well we maintain those forest. 200 million acres of forest. and those forest may very well help and assist us in creating the energy independence that president obama talks about, the need for us to sever our dependence on foreign oil.

some of that woody biomass would become fuel for your cars. so we, reverend, are indeed a very large organization. we are prepared to help. we appreciate the opportunity here today to get the message out. we are proud of what we do at usda. in the state of illinois, just to put a finer point on it, in our rural development programs, we spend $1,300,000 a day just in the state of illinois. investing in rural development. $1.3 million a day. that's in addition to the food programs. is in addition to the housing programs. that's in addition to community facility programs. that's in addition to all of the other programs that we are engaged in. let me say one other thing, and joe leonard wood watney to address this issue. we are very much interested in a health and welfare particularly of the children in this country. and we are concerned about the

fact that in the richest most powerful nation in the world we still have children who go to bed hungry every night. that is wrong. the president has challenged us to get rid of hunger among america's children by 2015. and that is one of usda's core missions. we also have a mission with obesity. unfortunately, almost 35% of the youngsters in this country today are either at risk of being overweight or in fact overweight. and the result is that leads to type two diabetes. that leads to additional health care costs, makes it much more difficult for that youngsters to be as successful as god intended them to be, or her to be. so we are addressing both the issue of hunger and obesity. i focusing on better nutrition, by linking local production and local consumption, by increasing the nutritional value of meals at school, daycare facilities. but we have a significant challenge that you all can help us with. and that challenge is during this time of year when

youngsters aren't in school. the summer vacation time. it's really hard for us to figure out how best to get meals to youngsters during those vacation periods. so to the extent that we can link up with whether it's urban centers or rural centers, nonprofit or for-profit enterprises, we would like to partner with you to create creative ways to make sure that these youngsters are well fed during the summer as they are during the fall, winter and spring. because they are our children. they're not your children. they're not my children. they are our children and we need to continue on that. [applause] >> we also understand and appreciate that our children, unfortunately, are bearing a certain part of this recession. as difficult as the unemployment circumstances are in the country, the usda is aware that the highest level of unemployment is among young people. 22%. we need to address that. we have summer programs with art

john cornyn used core programs creating opportunities for youngsters, particularly in our forest areas to work and help repair and improve our forest. putting youngsters to work outdoors, giving them a paycheck, giving them a skill. and so this is all of usda's involvement. and we haven't even talked about the fact that we are in 90 different countries and 154 countries we do business in that we are an integral part of a new approach to afghanistan and pakistan to try to bring peace to those troubled areas. that is also part of usda's mission. so i'm happy to be here today and i'm happy to participate in the discussion, the panel discussion. i want to leave you with this, whether you live in a world center or urban center xircom usda in actual life of every single american, at least two or three times a day and if you live in rural america we intersect in so many different ways which is why we are proud to say that we are at every day, every white usda. thank you.

[applause] >> we appreciate the presentation made by secretary vilsack. as we around the nation have engaged in a more meaningful way, this agency, a lot of times the last few years organized thousands of churches to engage in credit and lending and financial discipline, but this department is a big part of our mission. people around the country who, charles from louisiana, would you please stand? representative from louisiana. [applause]

>> former state senator from baton rouge, louisiana. [applause] >> who come here from around the nation to hear and to make the statement. the person who will drive this discussion today, who is the best at what he does, harvard professor, wirral sacramento, california, who has a book that we are pushing very hard for all to read, has the an acute sense of social justice in issues of poverty. we could think of no one better to pull out of our mayors, and tom, would you please give him a hand? >> we couldn't think of anyone better to kind of pull out of our mayors and officials, there are questions that we might get

them answered by secretary dan professor charles ogletree. give it up for doctor ogletree. put your hands together. [applause] >> thank you, reverend jackson. very happy to be here in chicago once again at this annual june conference. and i want to really before i introduce our panelists, is to congratulate reverend jackson. when you think of the title of this conference, a more perfect union, that turns which use more than 200 years ago as the aspiration for what america would be. and it's ironic, isn't it, that he we are in 2009 was our first african american president ever, our first african american attorney general ever, our first woman general ever and we still have an incredible economic and political social education problem in our country. and we can't get to a perfect union without a union between the private and the public,

between the rural and urban and suburban, and between those who are the have-nots and those who are the have a lot. and i want to thank particularly director tom vilsack for coming here because of all the places he could be, all of the things he could be doing he could be home in iowa for a week in. but he is here in chicago say i've got money to and i could help you do what you want to do. [applause] . .

calvin smyre, representative from the state of georgia. there are a lot of issues in georgia. to my immediate left in your right is the director of the illinois department of agriculture. i want to thank the panel's. [applause] let me start with the two mayors because most of the time we think of mayors as the big cities, we think of them in urban areas, we don't think about the impact of the small

areas. starting with mayor grant, the director was explaining away to apply for these moneys, you identified a problem that role mayors will have, access to technology. tell us, what is the issue that you see, that we need to think about in terms of small communities, trying to make sure the stimulus is not just through the banks but down to the people in a serious way. >> thank you so very much. let me preface by stating there are 560 african-american mayors in the united states. 40% of whom are representing communities where there is a lack of access to everything. having said that, when we speak specifically to broadband, having access to broadband, most

of these municipalities do not have access to broadband. secondly, our concerns on stimulus funding, how it was appropriated to federal agencies. the mandate to define the funding mechanism and manage those funds. we believe, we are concerned that mayors particularly from smaller communities which represents most of america are not at the table to help to develop the mechanisms, the regulations on how those funds are to be distributed so that the issues in those communities can best be addressed. >> i assume part of the problem as well is mayors have to be reelected as well. win these problems of the economy hit your city or your area, that is another important reason for you to keep the problems, money should not just go to chicago and detroit, it

should go to those areas that are unknown, have a big impact on the economy. the unemployment level -- >> our unemployment level is at this point in time fourteen%. >> twice the national level. >> yes. >> let me ask you, the village of hazelhearst, how would you frame the challenges we face in trying to lead the city. >> i want to thank reverend jackson because he came out last week in rome and met with the south suburban mayors and managers association, we have 42 mayors in that association. we do not know anything about agriculture. [laughter] we did not know anything.

i was at florida university, i didn't know what to major in. i didn't know what a major was. someone said what you going to major in? i don't know. take this magazine, what of you going to major in? that is what i did. hit there was another fellow from mississippi, where you going to major in? i said what do you mean by major? i have been on a farm all my life. what have you been doing? i said i have been farming all my life, give me anything with farming. give me anything but farming. they said what we will do is put you in agriculture. give me that. agriculture. [applause] the folks back home like that big board, agriculture. so i just want to say i learned

from reverend jackson a few days ago, how do you know anything, i don't know -- chad ginn no we could get grants from the department of agriculture. we are less than $50,000, we didn't know that. what i would like to see happen with this presentation, i would like to get a tape, we have televisions, video, cable, we need to show this to the people because what is happening, we are not getting the stimulus money they are talking about. it is not coming to the people. [applause] we have heard about it. the other night, i said any money we get has got to be spent on the people in hazel crest.

i am very delighted, secretary vilsack, that you have opened the eyes -- that is why i want to take this tape, to show it to the other mayors. we need to get behind you. we have not heard, we never have -- to come here, this is the first time in history that i know of, that the department of agriculture is coming up to share with us police well-kept secrets that have been going on. [applause] >> secretary vilsack, you're going to have more friends than you ever had before. the local black caucus of elected officials, that is a lot of people in this organization, this opportunity to talk about

resources through the department of agriculture will be a great boon. >> thank you, reverend jackson, for inviting me. as president of this president of the local black caucus of elected officials we had the largest constituency group of the national league of cities, we represent 18,000 towns, cities and villages, is a real honor to represent all of my colleagues, that lets you know that we come with a little bit of knowledge about the department of agriculture, because so many of our towns and villagess our agriculture bound, their small, have their cows and pigs and farms and all of that stuff. i want to tell you what i knew about the department of agriculture and why i believe as a black elected official, been

one of two on my city council, that we are going to have such little influence over these dollars coming down unless someone restructures it or all of a sudden get some type of consciousness that people must be involved in the rebuilding of america. that has become -- [applause] -- my mantra. but this time when we help build america, we will get paid. [applause] mr. moderator, i decided to go historically over how black people in america have been treated but though one statement i was going to talk about was the agricultural adjustment act of 1933 when the secretary of agriculture literally caused by farmers to reduce the price of acreage and consequently those farmers reduced all of their

acreage, they're planting, guess who were taking care of most of those farms? there were sharecroppers in the south who were black for the most part, who worked for, and guess what happened to them? they became poorer. that is part of the new deal. we have another deal and we could easily become poorer under this deal just as it was in the 30s under that deal. that is my mantra, mr. moderator, thank you, mr. jackson. [applause] >> i heard the reparations issue here. i will just move on. calvin smyre is the president of the national live caucus of state legislators, another organization which stayed by impact of the economy stimulus

package. >> i am delighted to be here and i want to thank reverend jackson for this opportunity, because we have a strong partnership and collaboration as it relates to public policy. i want to thank the secretary as well. this is the first time, in my 35 years of being elected to public office and state legislature in georgia, first, i had an opportunity to have a dialogue with the secretary of agriculture as it relates to issues so acute in african-american communities. i want to thank two of my members for being here today -- [applause] -- former members of nbc, an organization made of state legislators from 42 states including the virgin islands, the district of columbia, some think it ought to the estate because they have earned that

right. i am delighted to be here. even in our conversations at the national level, the obama administration has been very receptive. i am happy that joe leonard in the department of civil rights is an here as well. i am glad we are having this dialogue. what is happening at the state level, 43 states with deficits across america, in georgia, we had $3.2 billion deficit, and were it not for the obama administration, we would have to have made people off, it would have been catastrophic to our state government. because the fact that the stimulus money allow us to plot

those budgets, we were able to plug some of the cuts we had to make. the bigger issue is the methodology, the delivery of the funds, how the money comes down, that the infrastructure is not completely in place at the departments, so that the philosophical -- demanding that the president has is what delivered. mr. secretary, that is what i think that we need to have more dialogue about, delivery of these services, how we get our community based organizations in a position to receive some grant money and other areas, how we were pushing other organizations that are community-based, how do we get them involved and in a position that we can deliver

services to our community, and i am glad to see us here because the pendulum is moving. energy, climate change, broadband, agriculture, those are new terms for us. hello, somebody. that is new to us. reverend jackson, it is good that you have us here today to talk about agriculture and how it relates to our everyday life. the only people in america to set public policy are elected officials. >> that is right. >> only people in america, not some, the only. in america. our elected officials. organization like rainbow/push influences public policy. [applause] that is laid is critical that

we keep that -- we keep that collaboration, it is good that we do it as african-american elected officials because sometimes we too for get. >> yes, we do. >> we are a public service and we are elected here to do a certain thing. i look at government one way, ways, who get what, when, why and how. a $21 billion budget, i gauge by what i take home. it is the same thing in the federal government. we ought to be gauged on what we bring back to the community. so i am delighted to be here with the secretary and you, so we can contain this process, continues as delivery of services, continue to have the dialogue we need to have with the agriculture department and get this situation so we can go where the rubber meets the road. that is those areas where our constituents can be served and

have a better quality of life. >> thank you. [applause] >> next, we will hear from tom jennings, director of the illinois department of agriculture, on a sense of power is working in a state that has urban/suburban and rural areas and how that impacts -- mr. james? >> it is an honor to be here today. i want to thank the panel and reverend jackson for the invitation. i want to give you an overview of how the department agriculture impacts you on a day-to-day basis. we meet inspection, we check every gas pump that delivers fuel, both quality and quantity delivered to you. we checked the scales in the grocery stores, the deli scales, the large scales, rock quarries,

and where large quantities of commodities are delivered. let's just have an overview of how we impact fuel on a daily basis as a consumer, we also protect you in food safety, animal inspection, animal disease surveillance, things of that sort. one of the biggest challenges, a significant challenges that i see is development of a local food production and distribution center. we have been lucky and fortunate to get some grant money from usda specialty farm product and farmers' markets groups. in the last three years we increase the number of farmers markets throughout the rural and urban areas from 98 to 300. that is growing. in addition to that, we have been supporters of developing

community gardens. we developed one in springfield, we are very much attuned to the chicago high school for agricultural sciences, mentoring and job shadowing folks who attend that high school and loved to see that high-school expand, another satellite location, it will be wonderful for the urban communities. 97% a graduation rate from that high school, tremendous investment investment in education. everyone of those kids get the job out there. we are really happy about that. the other thing i think we should focus on in this metro area is 1500 food companies that are located here. there is a tremendous amount of employment related to agriculture. one in four jobs in illinois is tied to agriculture in some form or fashion. it is a formidable presence,

agriculture is a, in everybody's daily lives, great job opportunities in agriculture across the spectrum, from agricultural vegetation to production agriculture to processing agriculture, industrial technology, we bring a lot to the table in terms of the economy of the state of illinois, largest economy. one other thing i should mention is the marketing of illinois products, we do wonderful job, over -- almost $12 billion of agricultural products are produced in the state, of which almost $5 billion are exported. we not only feed a lonely and the midwest and the nation but we help feed the world. it is a very good investment in this department of agriculture. we work on $113 million budget

verses the secretary's $113 billion. read the rubber meets the road we hit it very hard, and we do protect you. appreciate the opportunity to be here today. [applause] >> as i said before, gary flowers is no stranger to this crowd, national field director of rainbow/push coalition. i have travelled with him from south side of chicago to south-central los angeles to south carolina to south africa. the reference have a broad sense of being a national field director and as ceo of the black leaders and foreign, please welcome back gary flowers. [applause] >> thank you, professor ogletree, and thank you, reverend jackson, for your use of a skewed analysis, but also,

your effective execution. dr. king warned we could have the process of analysis, whether in our families or social clubs, lot of folks have an opinion. but very few, it is the rare one who can analyze the situation, make it plain and and execute the solution. thank you, reverend jackson. national black caucus of lead -- state legislators and officials and national conference of black mayors and council of negro women, it goes on and on. our job, in the words of our black, is if we can provide the information to the people, they

can make intelligent decisions. so a lot of our role and my role is to harness the effect of leadership of our national organizations not only so they collaborate one to another but can transmute that information to you. as we commemorate the life of michael jackson, one of his songs and lyrics therein say he wants to start with the man in the mirror. i modified that to save a man and woman in the mirror. it is you who have come out today in the listening audience and the viewing audience, you must begin with your civic club, your neighborhood watch, with your local organization. and whether it is secretary vilsack, at the secretary level, we have connected the black leaders of america on a regular basis, we meet monthly with the

white house. we meet with the united states senate quarterly and the united states house of representatives to bring you better information. we stand ready to be better. >> i wanted -- yes? reverend jackson? >> a point i want to drive home, john jennings, secretary of agriculture in illinois, we do not know -- he does not know us, fundamentally. the food programs for example, inspection of them, rural housing construction loans, a whole range of stuff, tom is beneath our radar screen and we need to connect, the secretary of agriculture, we need to figure out what we can do to

become informed and what is accessible and how to access it. you cannot tell us enough of the range of the department of agriculture. >> let me try to respond to that in a number of ways. there were concerns expressed about the stimulus package. it is important for all of us to understand several things about the stimulus. there are stimulus moneys already in play that you may not be aware you are getting the benefit of. that is my responsibility to make sure you know that in the state of illinois, the supplemental assistance program, stimulus money which will be $1 billion over the course of the next 18 months, is already coming into the community, into the state's. it does this electronically. as a result of the stimulus money, they have $80 more on

that card going to digress restore. fax are -- whoo-hoo $92 billion at have coming to the state of illinois to us schools. if the schools haven't received that money if they would have to lay off teachers. fear is that portion of the stimulus monies that is already in play. there is another portion that we need to talk about half, the place where local elected

officials can work to find out where is this money and how do we get it and how do we use it? food stamps, broadband, weathers asian. the broadband folks give money to create opportunities for communities in the inner city and to urban and rural areas that connect to the internet. beyond local markets to global markets, tremendous opportunity for communities to grow and expand, to have access to all of that information. that money has not been allocated because the rules are in the process of being written. the rules were written after a series of public hearings in which we solicit information from folks how best to structure these programs. the rules this week will be

coming out, communities, nonprofits, organizations can apply for this money. between the department of commerce and the usda, there are $7 billion distributed over is the next 18 months. communities that cannot have access to internet, or are having trouble figuring out how to get folks use the internet, that is a an area -- how do you access that money, there are several ways to do it, a city or a county could go to the local farm service office in their county and inquire information on how to get the application form. we will be happy to assist in providing information about where the application is and try to answer questions as best we can. those applications are submitted to washington d.c. and reviewed. if they are found to have some

merit and interest, it goes to second prospect where we help you flesh out the application and you get the resources to build the first mile or last will put people to work --

that latter category where we can help you to make an application, i would also say that what we need to do, the rev. suggested this, we need to invite representatives from this organization, from the rainbow/push coalition and all the organizations represented here, if you want mind coming to washington or coming to a place where we can video conference you in, we have a two or three hour session where we can give you more detail than i can give you today. [applause] and if that is successful, then

we can figure out how to replicate that, and put it on video and distribute it. >> could you speak to minority contract and receiving contracts through stimulus? >> yes. there are procurement provisions that require -- that we have to follow, decisions about who gets contracts. i should have the statistics off of the top of my head. we do a very concerted effort to make sure small business contractors, minority contractors get more than their fair share of contracts. this percentage may be off a little bit, 25% of our contracts, or more than that, are minority. the goal for the federal government is 16%, we were at 23% or 24%.

>> these contracts -- >> the whole range of things that we do, from consulting contracts, there may be a time when the special expertise on how to put a program together or market a program, we hire people to make us do that, we are working on getting the director -- jennings -- talk about farmers markets, we are reaching out to support farmers markets. that may be a contract, there may be a contract on the forest service to fight fires, to purchase equipment, all of the contract have to go through this procurement process and that is true of the federal government. >> the reason i ask that question is there is a difference between minority contract and local minority participation. we have, in some states, where the local minority contractors are not receiving the contracts,

and companies that are so-called minority from other states are receiving the contracts, and the whole purpose of the stimulus bill was to support local communities to create jobs and sustain jobs that exist. if you will speak to that? >> i probably won't be able to speak to you very well but part of this process is a two state -- 2 lien street. this is an issue my take to dc to raise questions about how to make sure the money that is designed for local jobs create local jobs. it is a valid point and i can't answer it other than the usda programs. when you look at what we do, the s s.n.a.p. program, your grocery store is going to have to buy your product and get that from regional distribution so the money does stay in the

community. the home loans we do at usda, that involves the capacity for people to live in a community and purchase a home and our loans are a little bit more flexible than you might get at eighth professional bank where responsibilities may not be as great. people having a hard time buying that house, usda can get them into the house more easily. that money stays locally. the school lunch and school nutrition programs doesn't necessarily benefit local producers, but it certainly benefits agriculture in general. farmers and ranchers of the country benefit from that program. the business and industry loan programs help to create jobs and companies in the localities so most of what usda does impact and affects a community. the waste water treatment facility will benefit the community. the fire truck, the ambulance, fire station, the library that

we helped build, the health care clinic helps provide health care for people. even in urban centers, you don't think of urban centers as having for sort trees but we have a number of programs encouraging urban forestry and gardening. this is an emerging area that is an important area because it will link us to more nutritious food opportunities to make sure kids are healthier. there is an awful lot going on and most of what we do, does stay in the community. >> i just want to ask, you talked about rule development, speak to fire trucks and libraries, those types of bigger items. we have a small community, and

if we could input into those fire trucks because we have to pay for those also. >> the usda has a series of programs within rural development. that is the fine -- i thought you begun to ask what the definition of role was, i am glad you didn't, because there are at least 12 different definitions in a lot of what role is. there is no single definition. we have programs called a facility grant and loan program, community facilities create the loan program. that program is very broad. if i am a mayor, and i have a challenge because i need a library or i need a health clinic to attract a business or i need a fire truck to keep fire insurance premiums, this is why this is important. if you have a good fire department, home insurance rates are lower. that is our translate into helping people. if we could help you have a fire department, we can help you have

a better library or a better health care clinic. that is what the community facility money is for and it comes in two forms, either grants or loans and the loans are, as reverend jackson alluded to earlier, if government can get their money for next to nothing these loans are designed to allow you to get it. [applause] >> commissioner job corps -- commissioner at the 11, finlynu question. >> two issues, the concern over undocumented laborers in the college is creating that has moved african-americans and has put us in a state of year, then

you get the percentage of minorities that are not african-americans anymore patent-we have a resolution we just passed for the national league, we are really promoting the deployment and adoption and usage of broadband, but we fear, the question i asked you with reverend jackson, that coming down the pike, african-americans are not going to have computers, they're not going to have access, we had better train people that it is cheaper to pay you in that bill that it is to buy some other utilities. it is just that important. what is important to train someone who you don't have the

trainer. let me assure you, we are not going to get the african-american community going down to the library. we are going to have to hire someone to come to our schools, community centers, the churches. we don't have a facility like orlando but we have community centers. the issue is the impact for the black community, how we are going to be able to touch and benefit directly from these dollars. i understand you are talking about food stamps. >> it is not food stamps. >> what do you say? >> i have to make this point. this is really important. i am on a 1-man campaign to stop people from using the term food stamps. here's why is important, the program is called the supplemental nutrition assistance program, s.n.a.p. it

places the emphasis on nutrition, and assistance. it is and about welfare, it isn't about the connotations that go with food stamps. it is about nutrition, is about helping people eat so that they can do their jobs and go to school and be successful people. so help me here. let's get rid of that old term, s.n.a.p.. >> we never like food stamps, we never liked the word welfare but it was always the most convenient way of describing disadvantaged communities, but i appreciate your educating me on that since i have been a social worker for 35 years and i did not know that is what you call it anymore but i am concerned about how do we get our hands on some of the dollars to help not only s.n.a.p. but broadband, through construction, we are not going to build the bridges, you will not find one or two

african-americans who will build those roads unless somebody changes the structure, executive order or congress intervention, somebody has got to help us and give us some reassurance. >> these are great questions, they are challenging ones. let me see if i can help a little bit with the issue of how you get money for trainers and how you get people interested in utilizing these technologies. i would say there are opportunities through local schools, opportunities through local community organizations, with a number of stimulus programs. if i were in a small community and i had a minority population, african-american minority population and i was interested in making sure they understood the power of broadband, what i would probably do is i would go to mike -- the closest school, talked to the principle of the school, i would go to the community college and i would

say you have a moral obligation and responsibility to help us by neighborhood by neighborhood by neighborhood to provide opportunities for people who might better connect with their family, how they can use this technology and access information on jobs, opportunities, get better education for their children, all of them had benefits of broadband. and i would ask them to work with you to figure out whether it is the cbc program or resources within the stimulus money, or whether it is something through the usda and rural community to create those kinds of opportunities both in terms of people and in terms of the actual access to technology and i would say to the librarian, don't wait for us to come to your library, we are not comfortable there, you need to help us feel more comfortable, you come to us. our tax dollars are supporting the library, we are supporting your salary, you come to us, you

bring your library to us, don't necessarily assume we are going to come to the library. i think you can ask them and people will be responsive to that. on the issue of minority contracts, all i can tell you is we are trying to do in usda which is to ensure the contributions you all make in the form of tax dollars to us are in a sense distributed back in a proportional way. i am proud of the record recently at the usda, at least recently, of the fact that we are doing a better job of helping small contractors, minority contractors, access a larger percentage of the contract opportunities that some of the other federal agencies and greater than the average that has been set, sort of a threshold, substantially above that.

we are going to continue to look for opportunities. but i take from this meeting the need for us to go even deeper and make sure the business with a minority contractor is as close to hometown as possible. >> the final comment from mr. smyre, make a comment, what you told us. >> usda and all of the other agencies, $5 billion pool of money at the national telecom and information administration that provides, even in chicago, $100 million grant application for a $10,000 residential area here in the city of chicago, city council and the government, $20 million, a lot of these programs are formalized but there is a section that allows for cities and others to apply

for broadband technology and that is -- >> that is an important point. there is a website, dwight house -- whitehouserecovery.gov that i encourage people to go to. we have put together a gaea's spatial map of the united states and on each state will find out which products have already been funded and what moneys have been allocated that will give you a sense of what you could potentially think about, and where you might be able to apply for assistance. we worked on this, the department of justice is involved, we are trying to get every agency that has recovery investment money to filter what they're doing with their money so that we can in turn in a transparent way provide that information to citizens so they can make judgments about whether or not this is a good use of dollars or a bad use of dollars. i didn't know we could do that at the department of energy.

>> i know that the secretary has to leave. the dialogue will continue. he has already agreed, it will be arranged with reverend jackson and many of these organizations to put together an agenda of things that we can talk to the department of agriculture and perhaps the secretary of commerce, both rural and urban issues. >> you all are probably aware of the fact that for many, many years, far too many years, the usda was not properly dealing with or handling loan applications or concerns of minority farmers in this country and it resulted in a number of claims being filed, thousands, tens of thousands of claims being filed by black farmers, hispanic farmers, native american indian farmers, we are

in the process of dealing with these issues. they have been lingering for too long. president obama agreed with our conclusion that one of the ways to resolve this is for congress to establish a pot of money. we have suggested and put in the president's budget,$.25 billion for resolution of the preferred two claims, there are two separate groups, one process is almost finished, it took almost 10 years to get an finish. >> explain what that means? >> finished? mr. pickford was an african-american farmer who felt he was improperly dealt with by the usda, he sued, he started a process which resulted in a class-action. there were roughly 22,000 or so farmers that received certification in the first case but there retentive thousands of folks who didn't know they were supposed to apply or identify problem your fall there'll left

out of the process, so congress reopened it in the 2008 farm bill and created a second kickford claim group and we're dealing with the second pickford claim group, create a system where we defined and about of money that is available for distribution for those claimants in a streamlined process so that folks can actually get the money before they die. i say that not facetiously. the reality is this thing has strung out so long that a lot of people unfortunately have passed away. so we want to get it done. [applause] >> thank you, secretary vilsack. >> these folks have a question. >> can we just take -- i know these folks -- do you want to ask me a question? >> thank you very much. >> can you call and let the other folks know? >> i found your comments very engaging, but i am a member of a

group in chicago, last summer i attended the greensburg institute in northwestern. one of the problems i have noticed in terms of african-americans in particular, in terms of this green collar job creation and agriculture and basically, i am in agreement with daisy lynum, just as there is a digital divide, i see an eco divide in terms of this green collar job, those opportunities, in particular in terms of agriculture. as i sat there in northwestern and listen, i was the only african-american there, i sat, these white folks were talking about stuff that my grandmother and mother and grandfather, if i had a code of fight that stuff and written it and documented it, i would be the greene king because they basically talking about composting and farming, understanding how the moon does

this, basic kinds of things that are indigenous to the african-american experience. my question becomes what funding streams are available in terms -- just as we have the digital divide, we do understand these opportunities. on the local level, mr. director, i am saying information and outreach campaigns, people understand their opportunities, green gardens, there are opportunities to do out of the box kinds of things that do have employment jobs, contracts and opportunities. >> funding streams -- >> i don't see people talking in terms of outcomes that real people can understand. >> secretary? [applause] >> we have a -- >> let him respond. >> we are starting a program called know your farmer, no your

food. the purpose of this program is to create a connection between local consumption and local production. if you look at farming in america today, what you will see is in the last five years there were 108,000 new farming operations in the category of sales, less than $10,000, these were small operations, basically -- they redoing the practices that you just outlined. >> you are worried that in chicago we have food, desert, we don't have access to fresh food so churches and small entities could create those opportunities and employ people -- i am saying it is not happening program radically. >> we are getting their. that is what no your food, no your farmers about, creating the infrastructure that will allow like connection in an urban

center or a rural area, it is linking institutional purchasers of food. it would be nice to be able to provide fresh produce to school in the neighborhood. that type of thing. it creates markets for that small operations. we are in the process of putting together a plan, the deputy secretary has been tasked with this, of marketing, creating the infrastructure, you ask where does the money come from? there are several programs, there's a farmers market promotion program, there is a rural business and industry program that will provide grants. it is about processing facilities, cold storage, warehousing, having sufficient production, of drinking enough producers so you can meet the demand of whenever consumers you can identify, it is very complex. we are aware of what you just

outlined and we are also aware of the food desert issue. let me just say this. we are actually putting together a series of large grocers and we are asking the question of them, how is it that in a community like chicago or in a community like ben rouge or detroit or wherever, how is it that you can have a plethora of convenience stores and fast-food places that sell food that is less nutritious and more expensive and you can't support a grows restore? why is that? and what do we need to do to allowed gross restores, whether they are big or small, to be able to thrive in these areas so people have access to fresh produce and fresh fruit and vegetables and frozen foods and canned food so they can have a balanced diet? >> let me make a point. today, we are triggering a

conversation. we are triggering a conversation that we have never had with a department we never had it with. this is the beginning of a journey into the world of agriculture, not limited to what we thought, we have a psychological thing about farming, we have a farm under onerous conditions. the smallest part of this budget is about farming, it is a whole world. when you leave us today, you put the burden upon us of fathering through this conversation. the link is between this department and these elected officials and these ministers, these may years. we never really had before.

we have not known except -- we have triggered that conversation today. i want to respect the secretary asked time and ask another question, period. when he has left we will stand by 20 minutes longer to prepare for the follow through to implement what we have heard today and stand with a significant -- we must take this message to the other civil-rights and church organizations, even radios, so we can hear what these new opportunities are that have not been part of the basic conversation. >> they will meet in tables afterwards, about food does it in this area, very soon.

these two gentlemen, after ridge, will answer questions. >> final question? >> quick question. i am a community activist. since we had the opportunity of having you here, i thought i could quickly as you this question for some clarity. i am from louisiana and i have friends in louisiana. we didn't quite understand when you talked about the pigford suit, it was concluded that the black farmers would get x about of dollars at some point, they would do x amount of dollars. now i am hearing that the dollars that they would do, once the suit was over and they wanted, has been cut, is that true? would you clear that up?

and what was the dollar amount? each one of those black farmers want? >> in the pigford i case that was resolved and settled there are two types of farmers. you could choose to be a farmer in classification a or classification b. let's say i chose classification a. in classification a, i think he received a lump-sum payment, i believe it was $50,000. that was the amount you received. you also may have received some debt forgiveness and some relief from the irs, paying taxes on net 50 calvin dollars. that was your settlement, manys were paid out. if you chose not to be a class a farmer, you close -- shares to be a class b pharma, my damage that the greater than $50,000.

as each person gets what they prove. i may prove $35,000 or $75,000. that is what they get from the government. that is the pigafford i case. there were tens of thousands of people who didn't understand the rules or didn't know about the case or didn't know how to go about doing what they needed to do to protect their rights. congress established the second group, pigford ii, they said here is $100 million. go resolve those cases. $100 million won't do it. it isn't enough money to resolve

the case. president obama, at our suggestion and request, has placed in his budget proposal to congress, another $1.1 billion. it would be a total of $1.25 billion that would be available for distribution. the department of justice and the farmers would figure out how to carve that amount of in a way that would give people some semblance of justice. there are those who believe it ought to be a higher about. congress has to make some decisions about that but the point of it is creating another pot of money larger than $100 billion to resolve these cases and figure out a way in which the money can be this treated to these people more quickly so that it doesn't take another 10 years for folks to get their money. ..

>> we've got the answers right here. >> all right, we are pleased thank the secretary. >> let me do one more. [applause] >> yes. >> great and the state would

panel, i am in an organization called urban farming. four years ago we took $5000. since that time we have 650 gardens in 14 different countries. we have a 200,000 people off of $5000. we work on a shoestring budget. i ballinger 100 hours a week of my time free of charge. these are applications from children that have signed up in the city of chicago youth buddy program to create green jobs. we have been setting up gardens on vacant lots, organic fruit and vegetable garden on vacant lots for free. we would like to take this program and come to washington to show you how we can implement is worldwide. we want u.s.a. today magazine on june 2. we did good morning america last monday. we are on the website. one of the gardens that i started last year on a hundred and second and parnell just got picked up by campbell's soup. they spotted us with a seed so that we could feed more people in the community. and the children on their own came up with a delivery service

to deliver fresh food and vegetables. i would like someone to look at these applications because they already signed up with the city. >> i want to ask, -- no, she is wrong. let me say this. we cannot stop the whole thrust for somebody's private problems. she should come back and they should come back in your. they are missed all of what is being said. she must deal with her problem in line with other people. [applause] >> we have no problem, sir. >> you are correct that you hear what i'm saying. let me say something else. as we grapple with this subject, the big issue is going to be follow-through. a., we have the secretary here, b., we have his staff here. the plan of implementation on the ground here. we've got the state agriculture secretary for the first time

here. there's an awful lot of follow-through work to be done. the real commitment that's required is not just to get you in here today, but to commit yourself for time required to follow-through. i want you to respond because of i really thank you for coming. >> just this latest response. let me just in to say, if you could give, chris or joe, if you could get the petitions from this lady, we will try to get a woman by the name of olivia marquise to contact you. she is in charge of our peoples garden program which is very consistent with what you all are doing and she might be able to help you know what the resources are and what the opportunities are at a usda to help you expand that program. >> thank you very much, secretary vilsack. >> thank you. >> on behalf of the rainbow push

coalition, how grateful we are that you have come. and you julia, for your work in making this happen. there are two operative words i want to take back to washington with you. knowing where the resources are is by and large people do not know, and do something called targeting. the underlying anxiety here is that we see a stimulus coming out, things that they didn't even ask for, some got enough to send money back. it has not gotten down. and targeting, these small towns with these resource deficits where they lost plants and all that go along with plants cannot get through the upstairs crowd. because by the time he gets up

there, their budget deficits and their county and their mills, it never gets down to where those persons are. and so, you have, you do banking. we don't know that really. you do housing. you do libraries. you do roads. you do consulting. you do contracts. once we work through this with your staff today, our follow-ups will involve you and the other appropriate agencies on targeting. if president obama, can work with us and you on targeting the resources to areas of needs, that will solve a multitude of problems. if on the housing process, for example, you saw the house by house by house with 4 million foreclosure, you reduce the rate

and restructure loans. with the students, you simply watch them, and charging them more and more for less and less. your students get the same rates that banquettes. there are adjustments that may take place and some targeting. you can work with us and we will of course, and some of them from housing will be here. and we can work through on targeting and more on the resources are, we can solve a multitude of problems. you have been gracious with your time. we thank you for being here today. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> let us take our seats.

as we have, take your seats. we have a few more, please take your seats. take your seats. there are several points to be made. we have a few more minutes of c-span time, number one, as we talk to the nation. i want to take this time to walk through with you the rest of our convention schedule and obligation and tie all of this together. yesterday we focused on the state of civil rights.

it has been challenged by the supreme court in this session. we survived section five being intact basically, section two was challenged in a way that will have a negative impact. tomorrow there is a reasonable chance the supreme court will make a ruling on affirmative action. if they use the case they are using, if they use the strictest interpretation of that case, affirmative action as we have known it could lose which would require new legislation. it has been miscast as minority versus majority issues, black versus white which is everything except the truth. affirmative action is a majority not a minority issue. it is women, title ix and people call it title vii, to practicum from kind of discrimination.

that's the big challenge before this court and that was what we don't yesterday. there are more americans who have been wrongfully convicted and innocent, in jail, and abu ghraib and guantánamo combine. there are with those men and women who have served longer in jail, innocent than nelson mandela. that if they was in jail 30 years and found to be innocent. he was in jail 38 years and found to be innocent. i kind of backlash it seems came after the civil rights of southern struggle using jails as a way of maintaining order. as a matter fact, there are six southern states, one third of all black men that have

permanently lost their right to vote. the themes that are being used for the partition patient are enormous. for determining elections of government and president. it's a big deal. today we want to talk about agriculture about just how broad this department's scope is and how we can access its farm, the medium and small towns. the thing about food programs, it's not just small towns. gets chicago, it's new york, it's la as well. on one issue we have, i want you to write this down, the i issue is one of where the resources are. where the resources are. and targeting them to people who need them. and there is an issue here of not knowing where the resources are, and they are not targeting

something called shell already. different ways to keep people locked out. on tomorrow, the focus is going to be on access and business. once the government takes over gm or chrysler, then the obligation to enforce civil rights law, contract or otherwise, affirmative action, are critical to the restructuring in ways that helps all of us. it cannot just be civil rights, domestically. it must be globally in that last year we bought 750,000 cars from south korea. they bought 5000 from us. as they close down gm plants in the middle west, opening a plant in china. therefore, then impact of globalization of capital, without globalizing human

rights, workers rights, women's rights, children's rights, environment, it's a big deal to us. that's a follow-up of tomorrow's infrastructure discussion after the business breakfast tomorrow morning. and then at noontime, the international luncheon. one young man is coming now part of our conference, stuart lockwood. he went to iraq 20 years ago to bring citizens out of prison there who have been used as human shields. he was a young man who was five years old that saddam hussein was trying to intimidate. well, we're able to negotiate him out of iraq and taken back to london. [applause] >> he comes to the conference as one of our guests this year. he is now 24 years old. so he is a very special guest of ours. we went to get three soldiers out of yugoslavia. one of them will be here as our

special guest also. this is the 25th anniversary of our 84th run of the president as we saw to open up our country. so that's a big part of our work. but secretary, tomorrow the focus is going to be on access, equal access to education. and a real fight to reduce student loan rates. because the burden of cost is now too great a burden to bear. and tomorrow night we have an education bank where we give away among other things and 75 student scholarships, $400,000 worth of them on monday night. [applause] >> on tuesday the focus will be on labor. the governor of our state is going to address the impact if they did not pass a bill in illinois. the impact of not having a tax

adjustment in the state is going to wipe out thousands of workers and people services to burden to bear. that's our labor on tuesday morning. at noontime, a thousand ministers focus on financial literacy and saving people's homes and their jobs, reinvesting in america. the reverend from jacksonville, florida, is our keynote speaker on that. also secretary of housing will be engaging as we are here now. and then the session in the afternoon on a life beyond the playing field. these kids have great knowledge of glory on the ball field, but then they are very old, 29 and cripple. so life beyond the playing field. and on wednesday we close out with a session on health care, equal adequate access to health care. it's a big issue around the michael jordan -- michael

jackson practice, when does he get medical care. how long did they wait? did the doctor tried to do it and couldn't do it and then called the 911? we don't know the answers to these questions. we do know that john mitchell is on our staff, john walkout of the staff meeting and said he felt a pain in his chest. and john stumbled to the desk and said to maurice, i think i'm having a heart attack. maurice called 911 and within four minutes they were here. they work him over, talking back to the hospital which is six minutes away. and in 20 minutes john was in the hospital. in 30 minutes he was upstairs, and within our they said we saw a blood clot moving toward his head. now, without adequate access to medical care, he would have been gone. and that's why this deal is as personal as it is a global,

equal -- if he had been home alone he couldn't have gotten health care because he couldn't have been there. if they had been debating whether he had enough insurance to do the work, he would have died while a heart attack was taking place. needless to say, mr. smith is our keynote speaker on noontime and at noontime the women's luncheon. it's always a big event as we deal with gender equality issues regard to women. civil rights. is that right? constitutional law will be our last session. so i really want to thank you for being here today. first, give our panel a big hand. why don't you do that? [applause]

>> today a review of the surrey green court term >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> probably benefactors. >> i don't know. i think some of it is government raised. >> probably public funding. >> i want to say from me, my tax dollars. >> 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. >> judge sonia sotomayor has been nominated to be the next supreme court justice. c-span recently talked with associates of judge sonia sotomayor beginning with district attorney robert morgenthau who hired her as a prosecutor in the das office. >> district attorney robert morgenthau, your first time you met sonia sotomayor, do you remember? >> ideal. >> where was it? >> up at the analog school of. >> when was that? >> 1978. or early 1979. >> what we doing there? >> recruiting. >> recruiting for? >> the district attorney's office. and i was in the hall and i met jose serrano's who was a

professor and council of the university. and i san jose, do you have any good candidates for me. and he thought a moment and he said yeah, i think i have one. i don't think she ever thought about being a assistant district attorney but she would be good and good for her and be good for you. and i said what's her name. she said sonia sotomayor. and i said as she is interested ever call me. and that's how i met her. >> did you interview for in this room? do you remember? >> yes, i did. i interviewed everybody in this room. i interviewed everybody before they are hired. >> what struck you about her? >> well, i mean number one, she had an incredible academic record. she had come from a parochial high school, gone to princeton. she told me she had trouble with

the language for first year. but that the professor had taken interest in her and she spent the summer with him and his family. and she wrote an essay every day which she would then correct and she ended up graduating summa cum laude. and then she went on to law school, editor of the law journal. but i was impressed by her, her common sense, her no-nonsense. and i am always looking for people that i think can relate to victims and witnesses. and i thought she could, and i wasn't wrong. >> that relation to victims and witnesses, what does it take to have that ability? >> you have to have an understanding of people. and you can't be arrogant. you can't think you are smarter than everybody else. and even though she was very smart, she had the ability to

communicate. i mean, we did a survey i remember, fairly early on. we found that the number one reason for the dismissal of cases was because victims and witnesses would refuse to testify. so we want to be sure that whoever came, they had good ability but also they could relate to victims or witnesses so they could persuade them to testify and testify truthfully. >> so it was 1979, you were at yield looking for lawyers. and professor who is now a judge? >> right. had the two of you ever talked about yours, was a chance meeting? >> it was a chance meeting. he and i were founding directors of the legal defense fund so i knew him. it was just a band a chance meeting. so i said, was a comedy have anybody for us.

and so it was fortuitous. >> when you brought her in to this office then, what job did she have? >> she had the same job that she came in with, a class of 1979. solder the day after labor day. went to a training program, and then they would handle misdemeanors. initially. petit larceny cases and so on. >> is that what you called trial of euro 50 or something like that? >> well, we have six trial bureaus that are identical. won his intake. everyday, and the reason we have six is we don't want anyone to have the same duty every day so they rotate. and she was in trial bureaus 50. and i know every day is different here, it's got to be. but if you had to describe what a normal day would have been

like at that period of time for her as an assistant da, how would you describe it? >> well, on intake of course they would meet with the arresting officer and they had to evaluate his testimony. and they had to meet with witnesses, if there were any. and then they would write up the complainant. and they handled the arraignment. >> right then and there. >> right then and there. and look for the laser fingerprints or something, coming back. and then they would put over. most of the cases, once they got into complete room they would be arraigned. and they carried every caseload. >> like how many? >> sixty, 70 caseloads. >> and you would, they would continue with that and continue doing and take? >> on that day, they had kind of

a lot of balls in the air and they have to be careful not of them fell and hit them in the head. but she had the capacity to handle a lot of work. of course, the judges who sat on the arraignment parts kind of compete with each other to see how many cases they could dispose of in an eight hour time. they use to push around the young assistant. but nobody pushed sonia sotomayor around. >> what kind of style which he used to be able to both deal with people on one level, as you said, and be good at it, and also not allow herself to be pushed around? >> i mean, she just was very even tempered and she was prepared to the extent that you can be when you're handling that many cases. i mean, she came well known very

quickly as one of the new assistance that you couldn't push around. >> now, there was a question as to whether, i mean, at that time, professor cabranes didn't know whether she would be interested in being in your office, and the district attorney's office. did you have to convince her? >> no. she had only applied at that point to private firms. i think, maybe i had to convince her. i don't know. we had a talk. she didn't really say i've got to think about that a lot. >> how many assistants would you have had that year, do you know? or in general. >> probably about 15. >> is that how many you have today? >> yes. >> i read somewhere that the salary at that time was $17000 a year. >> that sun-dried. >> was that considered good?

at the time. >> not really. no. but as i told, you know, applicants the difference between coming to work for the district attorney's office and join to private practice, you go into private practice you are an employee. you are an associate. when you come to the district attorney's office, the the day you walk in ura partner you are close to the senior partners and junior partners. and there is one senior senior partner but you have a lot of responsibility very quickly. >> how often would you have one on one meetings with any of the assistance? >> only if they had a case, i mean, we always had a lunch for them right after they started. and then we would have later on we would have a reception for them but only if they were handling a case that i was interested in. >> were there any large cases that she dealt with during that period that you would have been working with her on?

>> yeah, there were two major cases. one was the so-called tarzan robbery, he would swing down from rooftop on a rope kick in the windows and then rob people. and he committed three murders during the course of this rampage. she tried that case along with another assistant. and they put him away for 137 years to life. and he is still in there. >> what about the other case? >> the other case was a child pornography case. and we had difficulty with child pornography cases because under the old all you have to show that the film or whatever it was appealed to the pure interest of the viewer.

and it there was a very abled trial lawyer from buffalo for you to come down to represent these defendants. he would say i can't believe that this appeal to your pure interest and the jurors would say no. when we got a change in the statute under the child welfare law, using children in pornographic films was a violation of the child welfare law. and that case would've to supreme court, people versus ferber. and they upheld the constitutionality. and then she tried the first case on the constitutionality was upheld. >> and she would have been here 30 years ago, and at that time you had been da about five years? >> yet. >> getting your legs wet herself a little bit rex. >> yet. i started in 1975.

she came in 1979 and stayed until 1984. >> so when you think about her, the possibility of her sitting as a justice on the supreme court, what do you see in the current justices today that you also see in judge sotomayor? in terms of legal, personal, what ever. >> number one, she is highly intelligent. she believes the rule of law. she is a good listener. and i think has excellent judgment. and when i first got out of law school, i went to work for judge patterson who had been a judge and a court of appeals in the second circuit, had some familiarity with judicial thinking. and i thought she was

outstanding. and i think she will be outstanding. and you know, she will be the only judge on the court that has tried cases at the local level. and so she knows what the issues are, the victim undergoes, the difficulty the police have him make in case, the difficulty. and she also understands the impact that a federal decision will have on state courts. and people tend to forget is, you know, more than 90% of the people in correctional institutions as i like to call him, other people call imprisons, are sent there by state prosecutors. so to have only one judge, but you have one judge on that court who understands what the problem of the state system, that is

extremely important. >> one of the criticisms of the judge has been whether personal thoughts come in to her legal ideas. how would you deal with your assistant district attorneys about their own personal opinions about certain things and had to keep that out of their judicial life? >> that was surely never a problem. i mean, she believed in the rule of law. she believed in forcing the law. we never saw that as a problem. >> did you have other assistant das who you would have to work with without? once in a great while but generally not. i mean, we have guidelines. we have our practice manual. assistance followed the guidelines, and if they don't want to have to check with the bureau chief, and then they have to check with me. but we never had any cases with

her where she didn't want to follow the guidelines. >> i read someplace that in order to be an assistant da, it was hard work, hard play, and an almost self-contained world. would you describe your office in that way? >> well, it certainly is hard work. some assistance to want to try a case, on the seat of their pants. but good assistance are always prepared for the facts and the law. she was always prepared. but you have to get out, you know, and interview witnesses. and certainly not a job where you can live in your own world. i would say that's one of the things we always look for, somebody who can come in and have a great record of the court trial record. but we want to see somebody, the

community and witnesses. if you don't have the cooperation of witnesses, you can be the best viable in the world and get nowhere. >> did her ability to speak several languages help her? >> always. i mean, sure, we get a lot of victims, a lot of witnesses who are hispanic, black tea no. sure. that's an asset to when i came in, there were no latino assistance. in fact, they were very few minority assistance. nine to be exact. now we have a hundred 18. >> and how about women? did you have very many women in the group? >> we had 19 women. now we have 268. a big change. >> did you have to work to get those numbers up? >> initially, yes. initially. but the chief of the trial

division, nancy ryan, jurisdiction over all the tribunal rules. this is a woman, i've had to chief assistants who have been women. initially. but i was well brought up by my mother. to understand the importance of utilizing women's. >> what advice would you give judge sotomayor as she walks into the senate today shira committee for the hearings? >> just tell the truth. she will be her own best advocate. >> and as she is testifying before the senate judiciary committee, you will be getting ready to celebrate her 90th birthday, is that correct? >> i think it is. >> what they. >> the last time i checked it is. >> what are your plans over the next year? >> my plans are limited to this you. i have a lot of cases in the pipeline, and i want to try to

get them all out before i leave. there is a lot of important work to be done between now and year end. that's what i'm concentrated on. >> one final question. how would you compare the crime of the city of new york in 1979 and the jobs of the assistant das at that time, versus what's happening today? >> well, there's a bunch more, there is more white collar crime now, more fraught after corporate level. more corruption. more identity theft. so i mean, when i became district attorney there were 648 murders in manhattan. last year there were 62. so that has freed up resources to deal with the newer kinds of crime. 90% of our felony cases are

identity theft. there is a whole area of immigration, fraud. i think the way the federal government handles immigration cases is a national disgrace. we have set a special unit to deal with that, immigrants, when they are victims of crime or witnesses that are afraid to testify. we have a policy here where we will not refer any case involving an illegal immigrant who federal authorities just because they have abused their power to such extent. >> mr. morgenthau, thank you very much. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> c-span also talked with susan sturm, a longtime friend of judge sotomayor who attended jill university law school with a supreme court nominee. this is about 20 minutes. >> professor susan sturm. when did you first meet judge

sotomayor? >> i met her in law school during my first year of law school. >> and this is ideal. >> yes. in 1976. >> what were the circumstances? >> we were friends with a common friend and her small-group. and we met at a social occasion, a group of law students who were getting acclimated to a new situation. >> what did you have in common? >> we shared an interest, i would say most important we shared an interest in social justice. we both came to law school to advance that set of personal goals. and immediately discovered that that was a common bond. we also really enjoyed trying to figure out what actually was going on in the world, this world of the yale law school. so we enjoyed trying to analyze the culture that we were in. >> what was going on at yale law school at the time?

>> well, it was both very exciting place. we had a class of people who were really very serious about themselves and their futures. and so there were many discussions about the role of the law as an agent of change, and also the role of the law as an ability. there was lots of discussion about that. we were also, i would say the second wave of women. so there were 41 women in our class out about 180 students. very few faculty who were women. so we were also kind of navigating our way into a world that had opened up to us, but where we were still relative newcomers. so that was also part of the journey. >> she came from princeton's? would you come from? >> i came from brown university. >> did she ever talk about

princeton, how that transition, as she made the transition? >> i can say that was a big discussion that we were really focused on what would work, on the work we were doing. and we were law journal colleagues together. so some talk about what it was like to write an article for the law journal. we both wrote on rather than, and decided to play our leadership roles elsewhere besides in the law journal. so there was a lot of discussion of that as well. >> let's talk about the law journal first. what was her role? >> she was an editor of the law journal, which meant that she works on other people's articles and she also wrote an article for the law journal which was subsequently published. >> why have a law journal? who reads it and what is it for? >> well, it's a very good question. the idea is that we are trying

to create knowledge to inform both the practitioners of law, judges, policymakers, and other researchers. law students are also entering into the field, and so the law journal articles are an opportunity to allow law students to express their view, to use their research, to draw on that resource of the law school to say something important about a pressing issue of a. >> to your member any of her articles. >> she wrote an article that was on, i don't remember it, with great precision. but it was on puerto rico and on the role of states rights and allocating i think it was natural resources. in many ways indicative of her

as a thinker and as a subsequent interest. it is something that was motivated by justice, motivated by trying to really understand problem, executed with great care and precision, very careful and close reading of the case law. and really trying to do thorough and thoughtful job to advance law in the best sense of the word. which i think is very typical of her thin and typical of pernell. >> we are ever in a classroom situation together? >> i don't think we were actually in class together. i remember her more socializing, and then also brainstorming ideas together in law school. >> let's talk about the brainstorming first. what would happen. you said you kind of went to different leadership roles. she went to what? >> she both led a policy

journal, was on the executive leadership of a policy journal. and that was the part that i knew most about. and i actually took the route, as the cheek, abusing law school as an opportunity to really develop ideas. and to really go into depth about an area that i got was deeply important and for which there was insufficient understanding. and that we both shared and as well get. >> so paint has a picture of the two of you in a social setting or just whatever you do, and what this exchange of ideas might have looked like. >> i'm picturing as, i think in her apartment, although i can't be sure, with our feet up. but also simultaneously laughing, but also really in

deep conversation. and i would say constructive conflict around ideas, that we were each trying to figure out both where we fit in but also more importantly this larger set of institutions. and what it meant to be a lawyer and to be addressing this set of issues which we came into initially as a set of commitments but now we are being socialized into a role. and what did that mean, and what was the relationship between one's role and what one was trying to accomplish. the thing that i remember being struck by at the time was the degree to which sonia had a deep appreciation of role.

that figuring out what it meant to be initially a lawyer, what it meant to be a prosecutor. what it meant to be writing from the position of a law journal editor as opposed to a reporter. what it meant to be an advocate versus a judge. and i remember having an initial set of conversations about the relationship between role and content, that once content was shaped by the position you are in. and, you know, having as sand, ira never having a sense of sonia of someone having this kind of passion or the law and the deep set of commitment to figuring out what the role meant, whether you are a judge, whether you were a legislature, whether you're an advocate. >> and that has been some of the criticism of her is she as an advocate, a shia judge, is she a

judge advocate. >> i think that's actually a misunderstanding of her, because what was clear is that then, and which i think has become much clearer to me now watching her on the bench and then having some conversations with her socially, even in the last year, is what it means to have a strong sense of role is that she really develops her opinions where she stands, how she inquires based on what it means to be a judge. so she is not an advocate. in law school, she was coming and really figuring out where am i in this. and what role is based what's the role i want to occupy that will enable me to fulfill my public mission.

having taken on the position of judge, i would say she is as committed to the legitimacy of that role, as anyone i have ever seen. so she is a very careful jurist. she reasoned through the decisions and she is not advancing any kind of an agenda as an advocate. so that's what it means to be really attempted to roll. it means i am in this position. what does want in the position of judge, in the position of justice do in a way that will give both credibility and legitimacy to the institution that you are part of. that seems to be her wired into how she operates and that's something that she started figuring out even when she was in law school. >> so that's the brainstorming sidekick now let's go to the social side. what did susan sturm and sonia sotomayor do when they let their hair down? >> well, i don't think it would

be, look like letting your hair down all that much, i have to say. what i remember most is how wonderful dinners that sonia is someone who really enjoyed good food of all different kinds. so wonderful dinners. >> that you went out to? >> what i read is, i'm not a cut, so it was sonia and others doing wonderful food. and just real joy and deep conversation around issues of passionate interest to the group of people. and then finding the humor in that. so sonia is always somebody who both was very serious and committed, but was also able to stand back with humility and laugh at herself.

and understand herself in relation to a broader group. one thing i just have to say that really stands out to me about her then that i think she is held to even as she has become a judge, is that she was someone who really paid attention to the content of what you were saying, whoever you were. rather than who you were. so she would listen to a good argument or a persuasive view, whether it came from the person on the street or the supreme court justice. she is someone who pays very close attention to what it is that people are saying. and at the same time is not easily intimidated. so somebody who would push back if she disagreed. and do it with grace and with

respect, but also making sure that she got to the bottom of things. and that was something that was actually part of the enjoyment. we would do it socially. we would do it when we were brainstorming about our ideas. >> so the peppering of lawyers that we here at she is known for, was happening between you, between your friends at a dinner party as well and in a classroom? >> sonia great, hard questions. and she does so with an interest to really understand at a very deep level and within open-mindedness about rethinking her own position if what she hears justifies having to rethink the process. >> with other social things you would do beside the dinners? were there any sports? anything else?

card? games? >> we would listen to music, but actually i would have to say what stands out in my mind is food and deep conversation. >> the class, how would you say she fits in terms of the class? were there many other latinos in the class? >> no. very few actually. so she was breaking new ground, although she was not somebody who presented herself with that as her mark of identity. she is somebody who mingled with a wide range of people. she was somebody who both seem to celebrate where she came from, but didn't define herself solely by where she came from, but by where she was going and what her interests were.

and so she wasn't someone who was very well integrated into the intellectual life of the law school. she was a vibrant part of the law journal, which was the center of the intellectual life in many respects of the students, although there were many other centers as well. she is also somebody who was very active in some of the social issues that were relevant at the time. >> like? >> well, if i'm remembering crackly, this does not stand up very vividly, but that she was, she did some clinical work while she was at law school and was very involved in that community as well. she was active, all of this was not something that i had direct contact with. she was active in the latino organization at yale, and i

think played a leadership role in that as well. so she wore many hats in law school and was a very active presence. >> do you remember your graduation? >> i remember it vaguely. >> were you altogether, or was there anything, were their goodbyes? how did that work? >> we were altogether. there was some kind of a cocktail party afterwards, and there was an opportunity to, yeah, say our goodbyes and reminisce a little bit. >> how often do you talk to her, or have you seen her since then? >> since i came to columbia, i joined the faculty. i joined in 2000. we have sort of rekindled our friendship. we both speak about sometimes

about potential law clerks. we talk about teaching, and then we have had dinner a number of locations to basically share our lives. >> there is a story that one of the reasons, one of the times in which she decided that she wanted to be a judge was from watching perry mason. did she ever tell you that? >> no. >> so that is new information to. >> that is new information to me. >> how about, i'm sure you have been reading some of the articles written about her, both pro and con. are there some that use a boy, they've got it, or that is absolutely wrong? >> well, the ones that talk about her as a straight shooter as someone who is hard to pigeonhole, as someone who calls it like she sees it, who does not fall neatly in one or another place on the ideological

spectrum, someone who takes her role very seriously, does seem to me to really resonate with both the person i know and adjudged that i think and the justice that she will be. also, the commentary suggesting that she is somebody who really can cross a lot of lines. she can speak to people across the political spectrum, and is a very effective communicator across those differences. so those also strike me as resonating with the person i know. the ones that i actually found to be the most disconnected from the person where the commentary questioning her qualifications. to me, those reactions were really not about judge

sotomayor. they were about the commentator. there is a very little way to look at her achievements and her capabilities and her commitments, and raise a question about her qualifications. here she is summa from question, on the law journal, more experienced as a judge than the current supreme court justices. and someone who really takes the role extremely seriously and demanding of herself and the quality of work as you will find. its difficulty to raise a question that her qualificaqualifications. to me this was an opportunity to say look out of public discourse about race isn't skewing the way in which a candidate for the supreme court, a nominee for the supreme court is being viewed. >> and is there anything in all

of that, or as you have been reading those articles, that you have said, boy, they have really missed this. nobody looked at pro, con. this is something about her i think people should know. >> well, the idea that putting together these qualities that the critics and the supporters have noted separately that on one hand she is someone who is not really trying to stake out huge new ground in her opinions. she is a careful jurist, which has been offered as a criticism with the idea that she is a tough communicator who can speak. is not intimidated by anybody. and what i don't think it's really been saying is that when you put those two things together, you really get a set of qualities that i think will

be both very significant and very constructive for the court. what's really needed is the ability to push hard, listen hard and connect across the differences. and to do that in a way that is not driven initially by the outcome that you want to get to, but by a deep commitment to the law. so these qualities that i think are being juxtaposed in opposition to each other, in fact, coexist with her. and i think of her in a position to be a remarkably effective justice. >> miss sturm, thank you. >> thank you. >> former defense secretary robert mcnamara who had been suffering health problems died this morning, according to his wife. he was 93 years old. he was nominated in 1961 to serve as secretary of defense

during the vietnam war under president kennedy. and stayed on during president johnson's administration. he later served as president of the world bank for 13 years. >> the u.s. government.

>> private benefactors. >> i don't know. i think some of it government-raised. >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations? >> i want to say from me, from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> house and senate lawmakers return this week after breaking last week for their 4th of july recess. the senate begins today at 2:00 p.m. eastern and will resume work on the legislative branch's fiscal year 2010 budget. debate on amendments and a final vote are expected today. following its completion, the senate will move on to homeland security spending. over in the house, lawmakers return tomorrow. legislative items on their agenda include aid for torture victims and spending for fiscal year 2010. watch live senate coverage

on c-span2, live house coverage -- >> next we continue our look at supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor with thomas dupree, a former bush administration justice department official. mr. dupree served in the justice department's civil division from 2007 to earlier this year. he spoke at the federalist society in dallas for about 40 minutes. >> hello and welcome. my name's dan mornoff i'm the president of the dallas chapter of the federalist society. i'm glad you join us what i think and i certainly hope you agree is a timely and well, i hope you agree interesting event. the genesis for this event was the may 1st announcement by juice tis souter, i like

to call him the justice who should have been edith jones, who is resigning from the supreme court. he has been serving since 1990. that makes him the 49th longest serving member of the current court which helps to drive holm in this particular job, the kplegs expression lifetime tenure is often literal. that does also draw home how important the members of the court are. and when on may 26th, president obama nominated judge society -- judge sotomayor from the second court of appeals to replace him on supreme court without giving us focus exactly what justice sotomayor might be like, what the confirmation process for her will be like and what this would mean for the future of the court. fortunately we have the with us a guest from, who is in from washington who is more than qualified to talk about all of those subjects. i'm, proud to be able to introduce to you the honorable thomas h. dupree, jr., the former deputy

assistant attorney general of the united states. mr. dupree is a graduate of williams college as well as the university of chicago law school, who once clerked for jerry smith at the fifth circuit court of appeals. in his private practice he played akhil role in bush v. gore, more recently in his stint in the federal government he oversaw the civil twigs of the department of justice. including the civil appellate practice of justice. he's appeared in front of the supreme court as well as all 13 of the united states courts of appeals, especially i should note he has appeared in front of judge sotomayor on the second circuit. so he has got a great deal of background here. i'm certainly very interested in what he has to say. i hope all of you are as well. let's give him a warm welcome to the dallas chapter, tom dupree. [applause] >> good afternoon.

thank you very much for inviting me here today and thank you, dan, for that kind introduction. it's always a pleasure for me to return to texas. as dan mentioned i clerked a just a little bit down the road in houston. it's wonderful to come back and to have a chance to catch up with many old friends and to escape the summertime heat in washington, d.c. thank you very much for having me here today. what i thought i would do is talk a little bit about president obama's, the way that he selected judge sotomayor to fill the souter vacancy. and then speak a little bit about the confirmation process and what we might anticipate as that goes forward. then i'd like to offer some observations and some thoughts as to the way that judge sotomayor, if confirmed, is likely to approach the law and the constitution as a justice of the supreme court. and then i certainly want to make sure i allow ample time for questions and so i know that this, these are issues that interest all of us so i

will be sure to leave enough time to hear what's on your mind. as we stand here today i think it is fair to say that absent an 11th hour surprise or some remarkable development, that, judge sotomayor is poised to become the next justice or newest justice of the supreme court. justice souter announced his decision to retire in early may. i think that, neither the fact of his resignation or the timing really was a particular surprise. i think a lot of people in washington anticipated this. i say the timing wasn't a surprise because i think it is certainly a fair inference that justice souter timed his resignation so as to permit president obama to choose his replacement, or at least to permit a president other than president bush to choose his replacement. i say it is a fair inference because of course justice souter resigned effectively the first

opportunity he had to do so in a post-bush world. i think the fact of his resignation was not a particular surprise either. justice souter always said that he looked forward to returning to his home state of new hampshire. he never particularly enjoyed being in washington, at least that was certainly the impression he often conveyed. and he always said that he wanted to retire and go home at a time in his life when he was still young enough to go hiking in the mountains and to enjoy the outdoors. now as far as justice souter's legacy goes, justice souter was really known for being a one-case at a time justice. with some exceptions he didn't write in a general sense or issue sweeping opinions. that's not to say it did not have important opinions. in fact he issued one very important opinion, or joined a very important opinion shortly after he was appointed to the point when he joined a three-justice plurality, planned parenthood v. casey which upheld the court holding of

roe v. wade. he had other decisions. one decision hasn't gone unnoticed but deserved more attention is the decision he offered in the court in the croxter case. this was intellectual property copyright case which justice souter addressed issue of file sharing and so-called peer-to-peer networks t was remarkable and this was an opinion authored by justice souter. a fashioned himself a man of the 19th century. this was a opportunity to really engage in modern technology and apply longstanding legal doctrines and kong septembers to a evolving technological context. i think he got that decision exactly right for what it's worth. i think justice souter's main legacy many ways will be impact he has had in service of confirmation process. certainly when justice souter was first nominated by the first president bush, he was famously characterized as being a homerun for conservatives. i think it is fair to say he was not a homerun for

conservatives. i don't know even if he was a single or a double. and certainly, i think that aspect of his service will have long-term ramirez amifications. we may have seen it in president obama's decision to nominate judge sotomayor. the president, certainly there were number of factors playing into the decision, that judge sotomayor did have a long track record of published opinions as a judge. first on the district court and then her service for more than a decade on the court of appeals. that may have given the president some added confidence that what he thought he was getting or will be getting is in fact what gets. and may have pushed him more toward appointing judge sotomayor than say, elena kagan, janet napolitano or other finalists who did not have that extensive track record of published opinions that judge sotomayor does. now the moment that justice souter announced his resignation all sorts of

activists groups and interest groups in washington, really throughout the country sprang to life. they came out of hibernation. they immediately began i think what is fairly characterized as a concerted effort to circumscribe what they viewed as permissible choices of candidates from which president obama could make a selection. a lot lot of groups insisted that the president should appoint a minority candidate or should appoint a woman. i should add this was not confined to activists groups. many members of the united states senate made their views known. shortly after justice souter announced his retirement, senator arlen specter went on "face the nation", he said, yes, presidents can make his own choice but he needs to appoint a minority or woman. the lobbying really got so intense in this area that the white house was forced to issue a remarkable statement where they said, publicly that all of this lobbying was quote, unquote, counterproductive and that, everyone who was really pushing the president in a very public way toward one

of their prefered choices they just needed to knock it off and cut it out. a few hours after the white house made that somewhat extraordinary statement, senator barbara boxer sent out a tweet on twitter where she urged her supporters to sign an on-line petition telling the president to appoint a woman. so i don't know if the message got as far out as the president hoped. there may have been some people who heard it and chose not to follow his request. but in any event i think the consequence of all this was is that, the president may well have perceived his choice to be narrowed and that if he didn't choose a woman, or a minority candidate that he may have been faced with a significant backlash from key portions of his con constituencies. so now, out of all this confusion and this chaos and this frenetic lobbying judge sotomayor emerges. and introducing her to the american public, the president spoke of her background. he has since characterized her as having more

experience, being a more experienced nominee than any justice, any nominee to be a justice of the supreme court in century. now, she certainly has an impressive background, there is no getting around that. she was raised in very humble circumstances in the bronx. she graduated from princeton university and yale law school. she went on to serve as an assistant district attorney in manhattan. she then had a stint in private practice where she litigated largely intellectual property cases. then she was appointed to the district court, the federal district court in new york by the first president bush. i should note for the record here, at that time there was arrangement between the democratic senator and republican senator from new york in which the republicans would put forth three nominees and democrats would get to choose one in return. and she was the democrat's nominee. she then served on the district court until 1998 when she was elevated to the second circuit by president clinton.

now one very interesting thing in introducing justice sotomayor that we've seen is that the president has focused, and white house as a whole have really focused on her experience and her qualifications which i think represents a change from what president obama spoke about during the campaign. then candidate obama spoke about during the campaign. you will no doubt recall when asked what quality he would look for in appointing a supreme court justice the president said, candidate obama said, empa think. that is what he wanted in a justice. because empathy is one of those words that on its face is certainly has a neutral or favorable connotation. who cooppose a justice who has empathy? i think it was fair to say the president was using empathy in careful sense or speaking in code or signaling to his supporters that he would appoint a justice who would reach certain out comes, viewed as liberal political outcomes in a lot of cases.

i think it is fair to say when the president talked about empathy he was not talking about empathy for the crime victim. he was not talking about empathy for the taxpayer. he was not talking about empathy for the property owner. and what's interesting is that the white house in the last few weeks has really back shelfed as it were the notion of empathy. they have really switched their focus now put spot lot more where i properly think it should be on her experience, her abilities on her qualifications. now, one interesting thing in rolling out justice sotomayor, i think overall the white house has done a pretty good job of it. not to say there haven't been some bumps in the road. there was one exchange. i can't resist quoting this i actually went and looked at the transcript. the day they announced the nomination of justice judge sotomayor, robert gibbs, who is the white house press secretary held his daily press conference at the white house. you can see from his perspective this was clearly a historic day. the president had just nominated a woman who would

be confirmed the first hispanic the supreme court justice in our history. clearly robert gibbs was hoping to bask in warmth and affection of white house press corps. gets up to the podium and take as question from helen thomas, some of you may know, many circles considered the dean of the white house press corps. robert gibbs gets up there and says, the president believes that judge sotomayor's life story is a compelling one and that her voice will be an important addition to the supreme court. then he calls on helen thomas. question. did she pay her taxes? [laughter] mr. gibbs says, pardon me? question. did she pay her taxes? mr. gibbs, well, i have not seen anything on that. now, in fairness, i should note it does appear that judge sotomayor has paid her taxes. so i think there is some truth to the claim that judge sotomayor has had life experiences that other obama nominees have not.

[laughter] now, there were some more serious issues of course that emerged during the rollout process. two of the issues that arose concerned comments judge sotomayor made not in the context after written judicial opinion but comments she made in law review articles, law school forum and the like. the first was her statement she made at berkeley's law school where she said quote, i would hope a wise latino woman with richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion more than a white man who hasn't lived that life. the second was her statement she made at duke law school, she said the court of appeals is where policy is made and then she quickly added i know this is on tape and i should never say that i think both of these comments certainly raise concerns. i think, both of these comments present perfectly legitimate areas of inquiry for the senators during judge sotomayor's confirmation hearing. the u.s. senate and individual senators have a constitutional obligation,

to evaluate the nominee for themselves. it is part of their constitutional advise and consent process and i certainly don't think it is in sense disrespectful for senators to ask her, good, hard, tough but fair questions. frankly i think judge sotomayor would welcome the opportunity to clarify her comments and explain, explain what she meant. one interesting thing about the confirmation process that we've seen in recent years, certainly is the extent, unfortunate extent which it really become a partisan, politicized event. it wasn't always this way. one thing we've seen a lot is that, i think many individuals individual senators use the confirmation process as an opportunity to talk about their view of the law. that was one wonderful statistic, i can't recall who gathered it but it was a terrific and very telling statistic where what they did, they went out and they quantified the amount of

time, this was in context with the roberts and alito hearings, they went out and quantified the amount of time which the senators spoke during the confirmation hearings relative to the time that the nominees spoke and they actually found there was some senators whose al lotted time, used 95% of their allotted time something a question and permitted only 5% of their allotted time for a sponges. what was interesting about this at the end of these hearings, many times the american public didn't really have a handle on what the nominee's actual views where where everyone had a real clear idea what say senator biden's views were. take a random example. it will be having to interesting to see if the sotomayor confirmation plays out in that respect. there is an old saw in washington circles, when you're advising a nominee who is about to undergo a confirmation process they need to follow an 80-20 rule. what that means that nominee, you need to make sure that

the senators are speaking for 80% of the time at least and that you're not speaking for more than 20% of the your time because then if you are, your nomination is in trouble. it will be interesting to see whether that dynamic plays out in the context of the sotomayor hearings. i said a moment ago these hearings have become increasingly politicized and partisan which is regretable. we saw of course in the bork confirmation hearings play out back in the 19890's. then we had a period in the 1990's, namely in the context of two clintonp appointees to the supreme court certainly a lot of senators were able to put partisanship aside. when president clinton nominated justice ginsberg to the supreme court here was a woman who was clearly qualified. she had a very distinguished background. she was at the time a judge on the d.c. circuit and, even though many senators no doubt disagreed with her

philosophically, she is on the liberal end of the spectrum, elections have consequences. presidents are entitled to point a. >> dicial nominee who shares their views. at end of the day the confirmation vote on justice ginsburg was 97-3 in favor of confirmation. justice buyer, clearly -- breyer, judge with distinguished track record, served as aid in the u.s. senate went on to be a judge in the first circuit he was confirmed by a vote of 87-9. we look what happened during the bush era where, president bush appointed two people to the supreme court. the first was of course chief justice roberts who at the time was a judge of, on d.c. circuit and prior to that had a very distinguished career in private practice he was widely acknowledged one of foremost supreme court advocates of his generation, his confirmation vote, 78-22. clearly a lot of senators nonetheless acknowledged his credentials and unquestioned

ability and competence and presumably because they disagreed with him philosophically refused to confirm him. justice alito, sitting judge on the third circuit, long distinguished track record as public serve vapt. he served as federal prosecutor among other things. his confirmation vote was 58-42. so in the span of a little over a decade we've gone from a three votes in opposition to justice ginsburg and we look on the other side, justice alito at risk of overgeneralization, is mirror image of justice ginsburg. he is on the conservative side but they were both circuit court judges he had 42 votes in opposition. now there is one very interesting comment made during the roberts hearing. where there was one senator who took to the floor, to the offer lavish praise in support of justice roberts's nomination and this senator said, and i quote, he said, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that judge roberts is qualified to sit

on the highest court in the land. he is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. then that senator, went on to vote against confirming chief justice roberts. the senator i just quoted is now president obama. and so it would be very interesting to see how the senators treat the situation when the the shoe is on the other foot and you have a nominee who again has a very distinguished background, excellent credentials, and yet there are no doubt many senators who may disagree with her philosophically. i think it will be very interesting to see how the republicans handle the situation in the weeks ahead. now, i would like to talk a little bit about, judge sotomayor's philosophy. as dan had mentioned in the introduction i have argued a number of cases, five appeals before judge sotomayor. whether i was in the justice department i ran a branch that handled literally hundreds of cases before her.

even prior to her nomination i spent a fair amount of time thinking about judge sotomayor. she was on my mind and certainly in the last few weeks i've spent a lot of time emersing myself in her opinions to try to get a sense how she thinks about the law and the constitution. of course it's always somewhat difficult i think at this stage to predict with 100% certainty how a sitting judge would act if confirmed to the supreme court. and that is so for a number of reasons. one is that, of course, you're dealing with a relatively small sample size, in the sense that it's not as though she has had dozens of decisions addressing, you know, the abortion issue, gun control, things of that nature. so you're really working from a very small sample size. the other complicating factor is that a court of appeals judge, at least in theory, is bound by supreme court precedent. and so, there's always the possibility that a jge, when elevated to the supreme court, and when those

restrictions or boundaries are removed so to speak and they're free to resolve things in the first instance, would approach the law somewhat differently. so subject to those two qualifications, let me offer some thoughts. i think judge sotomayor's writing style, in terms of her opinion authoring style, i think is fairly characterized as workman-like rather than idealogical. she is not overly rhetorical writer. i don't think she is fairly characterized as someone who writes in say the narrative style that for instance judge posner typically writes. her opinions are fairly straightforward as far as structure goes. in other words she will often state the law and simply, state the facts state the law and apply the facts, the law to the facts. that said i don't think i'm going out on a him that it is very likely that a justice sotomayor would often a align herself with

the liberal bloc on the supreme court. certainly everything in her background suggests she is likely to share many of the views that justice souter had and she is likely to join justices stevens and ginsburg and breyer in a hot button cases constitutional law issues and other issues where in recent years we've seen that familiar 5-4 split on the court. i think one aspect of her record, that certainly will get close attention during the confirmation process in her decision in the ricci case. many of you are no doubt familiar with that case but for those who aren't, this was a case involving an aptitude test given by the city of new haven, connecticut for firefighters. it would determine which firefighters were eligible for promotions. a bunch of hopefuls took the test, and at the end of the day the city saw results of test they determined that insufficient number of african-american candidates

had qualified for a promotion based on their test scores. so the city decided under those circumstance the best approach was simply jettison the test entirely thereby depriving plaintiff group, a group of white and hispanic firefighters, thereby denying them promotions they had earned. judge sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that decided the ricci case and decided what the city done should be held and affirmed. the case went up to the supreme court. they had argument a few months ago. i think based on questions, tenor of the argument there is very good likelihood the court is going to reverse the second circuit. i think that the reche case raises concerns concerns on number of fronts. it does appear the case was wrongly decided. as chief justice roberts quite correctly said the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. the another reason the decision raises concerns the way it was issued.

the court, second circuit issued the decision as an unpublished summary order. that was very brief, almost cursory and really didn't engage the merits of the weighty constitutional issues that were at stake. this was a criticism that was lodged by another clinton appointee on the second circuit, judge cabronas who expressed deep concerns the way the panel handled it really wasn't appropriate under the circumstances given, again the very important constitutional issues that were at stake. the fact that the case had been previoused and argued ex-extensively. i very much expect this decision will be front and center during the confirmmation hearing. with regard to judge sotomayor's positions on other issues, as far as criminal issues go i think it is fair to say she will generally take a liberal approach to a lot of these cases. i think she will align herself on those issues for the most part with the four-justice liberal bloc. that said it is interesting to note if you go back and

look at justice sotomayor's written questionnaires and answers that she has given to interview questions when people ask her, well, what are the most important cases that you have handled or been involved with during your career as a lawyer and judge, more often than not she identify as number of criminal cases she handled either as prosecutor or a judge that involve crimes against children. this was a real area of focus for her when she was in the d.a.'s office and she has spoken about it repeatedly. it is clearly an issue where she does feel passionate about it. i think she will generally take a liberal position on a lot of criminal law issues there may be areas where she does stake out a more conservative position. as far as immigration issues go, this is very interesting, here is statistic you may not know. when i learned about it, it was shocking to me. 40%, about 40% of the second circuit's docket today is immigration cases. 40%.

that's a remarkable number. it is second only to the 9th circuit which is actually approaching 50%. what it means is a few things. one it means that judge sotomayor has a lot of experience in this area. i mean, she had a steady diet of these cases for years and years and years so she knows this area of law very well. the other way i think it may impact her service on the supreme court is that, this explosion of immigration cases is a relatively new phenomenon in the sense it really only began within the last few years. and because the only other justice who has had a comparable experience during his tenure on the circuit court was justice alito, it means that justices sotomayor and alito are really only two justice that have personal tangible experience with the modern-day immigration system as far as being a judge goes and they are certainly going to be very aware of many problems plague our system. i know in a number of

immigration cases the supreme court handled in recent years justice alito played a very active role at augment asking questions. it is clear he brings to these cases his perspective as a judge who for the last few years had been hearing increasing number of these cases and was i think a little bit flummoxed about what to do with it and how to approach the law given the deluge of these cases. that is something that i think judge sotomayor will bring to the court. as far as her position on business issues go, this is a very interesting area of law. i spent a lot of time reading her cases on business issues. i'm primarily a business litigator, and so it was very interesting to me to see her approach to these issues. it is hard to pin her down. she has a mixed record. there are some cases where she stakes out what is a very pro-business position. limiting right of tort plaintiffs, for example. on the other hand there is certainly no shortage of cases where she has gone the other way.

employment discrimination cases. there are securities litigation where she staked out a pro-plaintiff view. and it is really hard based on her corpus of opinions it is very hard to pin her down. i think the best way to think about this if you think the best way the modern supreme court addressed business issues those are the issues that split the modern court in non-traditional and atypical ways. by that i mean there are a number of business issues where the conservative justices have gone against the interests of business and liberal justices are business's biggest protector. for example the area of punitive damages. question whether the constitution imposes substantive limits on the amount of a punitive damage award, that is a doctrine that was artic -- articulated and since developed liberal judges of supreme court over vocal objections to justices scalia and thomas who are typically regarded as

pro-business justice. they just constitutional limits latest improper man manifestation of due process. preemption where liberals and conservatives take different view where people see preemption as infringing on prerogative of the states. i had think at this time it will be very interesting to see how justice sotomayor approaches business issues and many ways her approach to them has been reflective of the modern supreme court. certainly she staked out many liberal positions but there are some positions where it wouldn't surprise me at all where she takes a very pro-business approach. let me say a few words about her temperment and demeanor. as i said i have argued a number of cases before her, and there is absolutely no question she is a very forceful, direct, questioner. i've argued before her i think almost all the judges on the second circuit and in my experience she was far and away most active of any

judge on that court in terms of her questions. many of which, give some inclination as to the way she is approaching the case. all that said, i did not find that she was in any sense, abusive or that her questions were inappropriate. again that's not to say that she's not direct and forceful and often makes her views known. there was actually one case which was unique in my experience where the lawyer on the other side had, in judge sotomayor's view, presented such a deficient brief during the course of the argument, judge sotomayor actually ordered the lawyer removed from the case and replaced with a court-appointed lawyer. unique in my experience. i can only imagine what that lawyer would then, tell her client when she returned. how did the argument go? well, i got fired. but it was certainly an unusual experience. see if she tries that or does that on the supreme court. my guess is probably not but you never know.

one last point i'd like to make before we open up to questions is, one question that's often raised both with regard to judge sotomayor and just nominees generally, is whether or not they could fulfill a consensus-building role on the supreme court? in other words, whether their personality, is such that they would be able to forge consensus, build coalitions on the court? and, when people say this often i think what they really mean, can she persuade justice kennedy. as far as that, who knows. i think, one thing that i will note is that, it is hard to predict these things in advance. the history of the supreme court in many respects has been a history of personalities. it is very difficult for outsider once you've got a new justice in the mix. it is very closed court. their conferences are closed and no one can be sure of

internal dynamics of the court, but it may well be she forges relationships with other justices we may not anticipate. even if she does there is still a open question whether forging a personal relationship with other members of the court would actually result in different outcomes. if i had to hazard a guess, my prediction at this point would be that judge sotomayor will fit in fairly seamlessly as a replacement for justice souter in terms of her idea -- ideology. in terms of her approach to the law. there may well be some differences on individual issues but i do not think we're in for any sort of radical restructuring of the court or any massive shifts in ideology one way or the other. i think that in many cases, particularly those hot-button constitutional cases i think we will see that familiar 5-4 split recurring again and again, at least until the next vacancy on the court arises. so, thank you very much. as i said i would love to

ending ter taken questions. in friends from c-span asked me to hold off to make sure we reach people with a microphone so that to make sure the question is heard. let's start over there. >> thank you. for your presentation. i'm wondering if you have any inkling of what judge sotomayor might rule on national security cases? you know, issues involving things like guantanamo, and whether she feels foreign law or international law should have the same sway as constitution as other liberal judges like justice breyer have that same view? >> thank you. let me, address quickly the second part of your question and then take the first. with regard to approach to international law issues, my best guess is that she will take the view that international rulings at least have some relevance. i believe she has either spoken or written on that issue and hasn't indicated

although she does not view those rulings or authorities as binding, they certainly may be relevant authority. of course in any given case, whether a court is treating something as relevant or persuasive, may be a matter of debate but my guess is that she will take the view based on her record that these authorities have some relevance to cases before the supreme court. with regard to the question on national security issues, it's a very good question and i wish we had more cases from which to draw conclusions. there are two relevant data points i will note. one is, that she had a case some years ago that involved searches on a ferry that operated i think vermont and may have been canada, and the question was the extent of the search you could subject passengers to. she sided with the government in that case. she said this is reasonable under the circumstances. the threat of a terrorist attack warranted a more intrusive search than might

be appropriate in other contexts. so i think she clearly got that one right. there is also a case pending right now in the second circuit called arar, where it involves a challenge by an individual who said that the u.s. government made a decision to improperly transfer him to another country where he was subjected to abuse. this was a case that was argued before en banc panel of the second circuit so all the judges participated in it. judge sotomayor participated but for some reason, i'm not sure why, she was not actually physically in new york that day but she appeared by videoconference but she was a very active questioner. it is always hazardous business to predict which way a judge will go based on his or her questions during the arguement but it seemed from her questions she did not agree with the government's position and that she was, taking a more restricted view of executive power and executive authority than the government had advocated. so, based on those two data

points it does appear she might take a more liberal view on national security issues but is that vermont case mentioned i noticed, she does, she does have an appreciation for some of the interests and concerns at stake. yes? >> as you indicated in your remarks, elections have consequences, and from the perspective of a rank and file federalist society member, i think it is a fair assumption we would not be enchanted with any supreme court nominee that president obama would put forward. but there's a continuum from bad to worse that those nominees could fall on. i was wondering where in your view, judge sotomayor falls on that continuum? [laughter] >> well, my view, my view she is a very reasonable choice for the president to have made. you know, if, in a world where i could say i would

choose this justice or not, i might well have a chosen a different justice but at the same time i do recognize that elections have consequences, and certainly if you look at her background and experience, i do think she is perfectly well-credentialed. i think the president is fully entitled to choose someone who shares his views. one of the great frustrations that i, certainly many people had during the bush administration was seeing nominees that we had put up who were just impeccably credentialed, impeccable experience, excellent judgement, treated very unfairly in my judgement by the senate or by certain senators. we put up a number of judicial nominees. people for executive branch positions who by any stretch were qualified, who had fantastic resume's, who displayed impeccable judgement and they were opposed in my view, namely improper grounds, partisan political grounds. you may be experienced and credentials bud i don't like your philosophy so we'll oppose you on that basis

which in my judgement is improper. that is the perspective i take in evaluating judge sotomayor. as far as other candidates so-called finalists i think he had some good people to choose from. from. i have a lot of respect for judge diane wood in the 7th circuit. i argued cases before her. i think she is a very smart judge. elena kagan, solicitor general, extremely smart and extremely talented. judge sotomayor, as i said i think she is reasonable choice for the president to make. as far as individual senators evaluations of her, no doubt that in large mart will be determined by confirmation process, where she will answer, at least i hope she gets to answer their questions. we'll see how the senate treats her. my view she was reasonable choice for president obama to make. yes? >> you mentioned early on that one of the factors that may have weighed into president obama's decision to choose judge sotomayor, among those different finalists that you mentioned, was that she had a long tenure as a circuit court judge, and that was one of

the results of judge souter, justice souter's tenure on the court was, president might want to have someone with more record to be able to examine to see how they would make a decision. do you think that we've reached a point where if someone not only had a long record as a circuit court judge but maybe hasn't even served as a judge we're not going to see that person be nominated? we'll not see people who are governors or have other kinds of experiences nominated as justices for the court and do you think that is good thing or a bad thing. >> i think that, that is definitely a very relevant factor in this day and age. i think the fact that judge sotomayor had that record, other nominees did not have that record, my guess is that was a very important consideration to the president. whether or not it was dispositive, in other words, whether you absolutely have to have that record, i don't think i go so far as to say that. had the president appointed, say, secretary napolitano or governor granholm, that

might have been a surprise but i don't think it would have been a total shock. i wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone with no track record would get appointed. i think president obama also has spoken many times, during the campaign, certainly, that he was attracted to the notion of choosing someone who didn't fit the typical profile. that is to say, a circuit court nominee or circuit court judge. i think he may also have in mind, for instance the model of earl warren, you appoint someone with a very long track record of politician and might approach issues in a way someone who hasn't been a judge would. whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing, depends on the person. certainly i think you would want to have someone who has an appreciation for the notion that a judge's role is different in kind than the role of a politician. a judge obviously is applying the law, a judge is applying the constitution,. a judge can't pay attention to poll numbers or what the popular outcome would be. so while i would say that a

politician may well make an excellent supreme court justice, i think you need to make sure that that person, whoever he or she is, has an appreciation for the distinct role, distinct function of those two roles. yes, over there. >> quick question. just a brief overview. i consider -- others -- involvement on future topics, three general topics, illegal immigration, gun control, and, any effect she might have on capital formation and tax policy in the future. >> let's see. i guess taking the, first one, the illegal immigration first. as i mentioned, she has vast experience in this area. so she knows the law exceedingly well. my guess, just from having argued cases before her, she probably takes a fairly liberal view in the sense that i think she might be more sympathetic than say justice thomas or justice scalia would be to claims of

illegal aliens who are fighting removeal. speaking of my personal experience having argued some of these cases before her, that certainly seemed to be the way she would approach a lot of these cases. she would hold the government to a demanding standard. not saying it was inappropriate or wrong standard but she would really make sure that the government had its argument right and that the legal alien in case at issue was being treated fairly. nothing wrong with that. but that was generally her approach. with regard to gun control, she has had some cases, she actually was on a panel that resolved a case recently where some people said, oh, this shows she takes more liberal perspective but then others pointed out a conservative panel of the 7th circuit reached the same result so you have to discount for that. it's hard to say based on that decision. my best guess she would probably take a more liberal view of gun control. again, i would be surprised if she sided with justice

scalia and justice thomas on that issue. with when you're on the supreme court you're not bound by circuit curt or supreme court precedent same way you are as appeals court judge. jury is still out on her. the tax form or tax -- >> [inaudible] >> right. there too she will have immense amount of experience. she was judge in second district of new york. second circuit obvious hearings appeals rise outfrom the financial sector. she has a lot of experience there from what i've seen in some cases she has taken a more pro-plaintiff view, at least more of a pro-shareholder view in some of these types of cases. based on her past record is where i anticipate her coming in. subject to usual qualifications once again on the supreme court, all bets are off but based on her track record that is the approach she seems to have taken to date. >> thank you. >> any other questions? i think there's one in the back there.

>> you mentioned judge wood and, kagan. do you think they're on the short list? looking down the road, for, when justice stevens retires or, justice ginsberg, what is the scuttlebutt who would be on the short list for those spots? >> let me first say i think it is reasonably likely president obama will have another opportunity to make an appointment. so i think that question of who's the next one going to be is certainly something that i'm sure the white house has already thought about. frankly wouldn't surprise me if they made the sotomayor appointment in light of people, they might appoint to subsequent vacancy. as far as who might be a future aptointee, certainly if you were on the short list for first vacancy i think it is a fair assumption you would be on short list for a second vacancy. keep in mind during the clinton administration, justice breyer was widely perceived to be runner-up for the slot that went to justice ginsberg. when the next vacancy arose,

breyer got it. there is precedent for a runner-up getting a subsequent appointment. there are a few qualifications i would add to that. one is you never know what the political environment will be. you can imagine a situation where years down the road where the political dynamic in the country has shifted. where the republicans have greater strength this senate and that accordingly might effect people that the president thought he could get confirmed or put through the process. the other variable is who's vacancy he is filling. i think the sotomayor nomination is less controversial than it otherwise would be because the appointment is to fill justice souter's seat. certainly you can imagine a circumstance where not, that i anticipate say, justice thomas resigning but if he were to resign during the obama administration and the president was filling that spot i think you might see a very different reaction at least from conservatives or republicans because the appointment would obviously have much greater consequence to the balance of the court. so, i think subject to the

political qualification about changing environment in america and the actual vacancy that a president obama would be filling, we'll see what happens. but i would start with the current short list as the next short list at least as presumptive short list. terrific. i think that's it. thank you very much for your hospitality. [applause] >> for more on the nomination of judge sotomayor go on-line to cspan.org where you will see the president's speech nominating the judge, reaction from members of congress and others, and senate for statements from 1998 appeals court nomnation. the senate judiciary committee is set to hold the confirmation hearing the week of july 13th. we'll have the hearing live on the c-span networks, c-span radio and our web site, at cspan.org. >> president barack obama

and russian president med today very much signed a joint understanding to negotiate a arms control greeting. lower levels of nuclear warheads for both countries. the deal would replace a 1991 strategic arms reduction treat that expires in december. at 1:00 p.m. we'll take you live to the carnegie endowment for international peace for a discussion on the summit with the two leaders. watch live coverage of that with c-span. also on c-span at 3:30 eastern a discussion of the supreme court's recently completed term as well as a look ahead. participants include the principal u.s. depthty solicitor general and lawyers who argued prominent cases before the court this term >> i don't know, i think some of it is government-raise. >> not public. funding. >> probably donations? >> i want to say from me, my tax dollars.

>> 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 >> house and senate lawmakers return this week after breaking last week for their 4th of july recess. the senate begins today at 2:00 p.m. eastern >> former defense secretary

robert mcnamara, who had been suffering health problems died this morning according to his wife. he was 93 years old. he was nominated in 1961 to serve as secretary of defense during the vietnam war under president kennedy, and stayed on during president johnson's administration. mr. mcnamarra later served as president of the world bank for 13 years. robert mcnamara appeared on book notes in 1995 to talk about his life, career and the vietnam war. up next our two-part interview with the former secretary of defense. it is just under two hours. c-span: robert mcnamara, when woos the first time you can ever remember thinking about public service? >> i hadn't anticipated that question. very early i think. in the book, you may have noticed there's a pictorial as such. i was under contract to do

16 pages of pictures. and my wife always took care of photographs and things. so when i began, she died 14 years ago. and i have absolutely zero order in my home with respect to pictures. so i took two or three days out to try to find pictures that i thought they might be interested in. and i wanted to start with a picture of me as an eagle scout. and you think that is absurd but that's there for the reason that scouting, began to set my values. in addition to exposing me to the mountains which, had become an obsession but scouting began to set my values. i, as you can see, i have the eagle scout badge on. one of the merit badges, we had to earn 1 merit badges, one of them was in civics. and i learned in the civics merit badge, in a, broad sense, responsibility of every citizen to serve. so, to answer your question,

if it doesn't sound absurd to your audience, i began to think of public service in various forms, when i was 12 or 13 years old. but then, perhaps, the time i really began to focus on it was in, well, by the way, i volunteered for world war two. i don't say that to gain any credit, please understand me. i had two deferments. i had educational differentment because i was teaching at harvard at officer candidate school and i had family deferment because i had a child. but i volunteered. that's what i think citizens should do. they had an obligation to serve their country. then it came more closely at home because, in i suppose, i have forgotten the exact year, but the mid 1950s when i was an officer at ford motor company, i was asked

if i would consider an assistant secretariship in the air force. and at that particular time it didn't sound to me as though i could contribute anything. it wasn't a position of any great responsibility. so i said no, but, it was very much on my mind, and i said to mark, would you be willing to think about moving, giving up ford motor company and moving to public service. she said look, you believe, i believe. that's what we'll do. c-span: where it did you grow he grow up? >> i grew up in california. i was born in san francisco. and i, grew up there in the book, and i want to, i hope we can develop this theme later but you ask me where i grew up. i grew up in san francisco. my earliest memory of a city exploding with joy. the date was november 11, 1918, armistice day. i was two years old.

the city of san francisco, it was celebrating, obviously the end of world war i which we had one but more fundamentally, it was celebrating the belief that that was a war to end all wars. that was president woodrow wilson's view. that was the view of many, many americans. we were totally wrong. this is the bloodiest century in history. we, the human race, will have killed 160 million other human beings. in any event, i grew up in san francisco. and, you know, in a wonderful environment. i went to, first grade there in a school like i could walk to. there had been a slight baby boom in world war i. by the time i got into first grade in about 1922, there weren't any classrooms in the normal school buildings. they were full. so i literally went to school until a shack, a

wooden shack. but we had a fantastic teacher. in the first grade, she gave the class a test, every month, and she receipted the class based on the results of that test. there were vertical rows like this. and i worked my tail off to be in the first seat in the left hand row. i can remember this as though it were yesterday. and my competition were chinese, japanese and jews. there were a lot of wasps in the class. i didn't worry about them. it was chinese, japanese and jews i worried about and i worked my tail off, five days a week to beat them. on saturday and sunday i played with my neighborhood classmates. they went to their ethnic schools. they learned their language. they learned their history. they learned their culture. they learned their values and they came back on monday determined to beat that damn irishman. i happy to say they rarely did. c-span: what were your parents about? >> well my parents, my father was irish. as a matter of fact, many,

not most of my uncles and aunts, his sisters and brothers on my father's side, were actually born in ireland. my father was much older than my mother, and his father and mother and, many of his sisters and brothers, it was a rather large family, had been forced out of ireland beyond the potato famine. the potato famine i recall was 1845, 48. they came, as i remembered, in the '50s, 1850s, to massachusetts. and then, the whole family went to california. then my father crossed the is must of panama on the way to california on mule-back envelope 1863, something like that. he never went beyond the 8th grade. my mother never went beyond high school. this is one of the reasons i was expected, i will call it achieve. i was expected to learn, to

take advantage of the opportunities that were open to me, that they hadn't had an opportunity to take advantage of. this was a tremendous stimulus to me. c-span: you end up going to uc berkeley. >> i did. c-span: you talk about in the book you wanted to find least expensive and the best. >> well, that is not quite correct. c-span: it's close. >> but, you're almost right but let me put it slightly differently. in a sense the best was thought to be stanford at the time. it wasn't the best but that was the common view. and i think it was thought to be the best because it was quite expensive. so i applied for stanford, to stanford. and it was one of the few universities in the country at that time that had entrance exams. today it is quite common. then it was very uncommon. i took the entrance exam and passed it. it was only then i understood how much it cost. there was no chance of me going to stanford. wasn't any chance of me going anywhere. unless it was almost free. and, as it happened, i went

to the best, certainly one of the two or three best universities in the entire world, university of california at berkeley. it cost me $52 a year. i could not have gone to college had it not opinion for that. and today, that university is under tremendous stress because of proposition 13 in california. they're denying it the funds they need to maintain excellence. people said to me many times in the last 20, 30, 40 years you've been in business, why do you think the state of california has been the preeminent state in this country in terms of, i'll call it industrial advances, silicon valley, why is that? there is one major reason. it is the educational system, the public educational system. the schools i went to. and the university. and that university trained people in large measure sure contributed to the social and economic advance of that state in the last half century a