of the regulated pollutants much less greenhouse gas pollutants. i happen to believe he the activity does not cause climate change but we so exacerbate the natural phenomenon that in fact we are having an impact. we are making it difficult for the nature to and absorbed the changes that would have been happening any way and it's happening faster so it's in our interest to slow it down if we can without handicapping and destroying our economy that is nobody subjective but there's steps we can take short of that. nuclear to my mind is a separate discussion than the climate change one in and of itself. it does not produce greenhouse gases but also doesn't produce any regulated pollutants and all of the forms of space power are releasing the in the atmosphere not good for our health and that is why we regulate them. my husband said after being that epi could rule in anybody's state because it was a beautiful sunset i would say that is p.m. 2.5, that is particulate matter,

it is bad stuff in there that isn't good to get into our lungs. .. but we need an energy bill. we desperately need an energy plan. we have an aging infrastructure. we need to take some action. you will get to a reduction of carbon if you do a bill. especially if you do it with the

understanding that the unborn states as clean as possible that would therefore bring you to nuclear. would therefore bring you to something that you will agree on but you will get a cap on carbon without having to have this debate over arguments causing climate change, to what extent are they causing climate change, which of our two babies are causing climate change because how we use the land around us has an impact. >> host: next up is georgetown, massachusetts, dan good morning honor republican line. >> caller: thanks for having me this morning. i have a couple of question, the first one pertaining to global warming. i am wondering if you believe in the basic premise that when you are pumping oil out of the earth, which the oil may in fact help the planet be more stable, and then burning it and releasing the co2 into our atmosphere at the same time we

are decreasing our planet's ability to convert the co2 into oxygen is dangerous for our planet. that is my first question. i will let you answer if you would like. >> guest: as indicated with the earlier caller while i don't think we cause as humans, cause climate change because the earth has been changing said was formed it is clear our activities are excessive reading this natural trend brother through the release of carbon are the other five or six greenhouse gases are the way we are changing land-use patterns and deforestation farming and development outlook which have a huge impact on climate. it is something we need to take seriously and start to address. i don't believe the world is going to end tomorrow but i believe it is a serious issue and we need to be aware of it and look for those ways in which i think there are many, and we can reduce our carbon impact, improve our footprints geographically in the world and not stop our economy.

>> host: collar, do you have another question? >> caller: yes, i do. i'm glad i heard the word exacerbate because they believe that multiplying effect is really going on. my other question pertains to dust in new york city immediately after 9/11 and i know you have a difficult call up you know, saying whether it was safe for people to be working in the area. apparently a lot of them went in there without respirators and stuff in there was a large impact after, and i'm wondering, years after-the-fact whether there has been no new information that supports the 9/11 commission report, which evened cochair and chairman say doesn't hold water? >> host: thanks james. we will get a response. >> guest: i presume they question is basically around the air quality on the side of 9/11

and frankly that wasn't difficult call at all because we said over and over again those working on the site needed to wear respirators. we were always concerned about that. in fact the agency brought in every respirator we could find to put on sight. we monitor them and provided wash stations for the workers. unfortunately we couldn't enforce it and there was a difference between air quality of those working on the site and in the lower manhattan region in general. we were doing consommé or chest and measuring them against their monitors that were being looked at by the city, by the state and by some of the love colin cetaceans of higher learning. the air quality in general can lower manhattan was okay. we weren't seeing a long-term health problem for people who lived in the general area after the initial impact and that is something totally different but on the site, on the site they needed to have worn respirators. >> host: you said you couldn't enforce it. is that because people didn't wear respirators?

>> guest: they didn't wear them persistently. they were cumbersome and they were hot. those were warm, fall days when they were at the height of pulling stuff off in having releases. this was a desperate mission to protect him to and to try to find their compatriots, their buddies, their brothers and sisters and they didn't want the workers on the site didn't want anything to slow them down. we had people actually on the site with portable monitors to a couple of them were related to me. they went up to workers and said you have to put on your respirator. they said you get out of my face. they weren't being irresponsible workers. they were passionate and that is something we really need to figure out before something happens again, so who has the authority because it was local responding community or where there were contractors, that is when osha could do at which they did but they didn't have control over people who work for other

municipalities and were actually local government workers. >> host: another call from naples, florida. david on our democrats line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i had a request if you would please discuss the total carbon footprint in producing nuclear power, i.e. from the exploration , mining, transportation, processing and of course storage. >> guest: there is no question but there is a carbon footprint. there is a carbon footprint to everything. there is a carbon footprint to hydropower in the construction and materials there. there's a carbon footprint to solar power and the production of the solar panels and the work it takes to keep them off so there are full carbon footprints. i can't give you a comparative for one of the rewable to another, to the green powers of

carbon footprints a nuclear, when you are talking about efficiency, when it is up and running it is more efficient than other renewable power switch counts and it is the one form of base power if you are looking at somebody that is going to meet energy demands 24/7 the way our society works, nuclear is the only one of those sources that doesn't release any producing power and i'm cognizant of what you are saying. i am always careful to say it is as well as producing energy that it is releasing regulated pollutants because there is a carbon footprint associated with anything. >> host: where do we get more sabar route for? >> guest: we have some domestically but when we imported it comes from canada and australia. >> host: there are states mining for plutonium. >> guest: in the midwest we have minds. >> host: do we import the board -- my bulk of that? >> guest: up until recently 20% of our nuclear which is 20%

of our power overall but 70% of our clean power has come from reprocessed russian nuclear warheads. that is something people don't know. that is where a substantial part of our nuclear power is coming. >> host: middle port, ohio, ron on our democrats line. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. yes maam, i have a couple of things. i served in the navy and served on a nuclear submarine and you know i know how efficient nuclear power can be. but, i also worked in the oil industry and i have seen how the epa came in on us back in the late 70s and early '80s, and they seem to have targeted a lot of the smaller independents back and avoided the bigger ones. and, we left a lot of, we

plugged a lot of producing wells and we abandon a lot of wells that still have production of them. a lot of the deeper wells that were plugged, is there anyway we could put the spent nuclear fool fool-- fuel and then and cap them all because it would be a win-win. you are talking over 10,000 feet and concrete on top of it. welds have to be cemented off regardless. >> guest: first of all thank you for your service. we appreciate it very much. we have got to be really careful about how we handle reprocessed mason. it will be up to the epa and the department of energy and the task force now that we hamilton and i forget who the coach areas, are going to be handling for the department of energy, to take a look at what is safe, where can we guarantee the long-range safety because that is the other part of it, the regulations require you look at

safety 10,000 years. i think for anybody in this day and age, if you said i'm going to guarantee you anything for 100 years less 10,000 they would say you are not because technology is going to change but that is what is required. is a very rigorous process to ensure that wherever the spent fuel is kept it is kept safely and not something that can be taken lightly and it is going to take a lot of examination to find someplace other than yucca mountain where mountain where tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars have already gone to improving a site. of course course in south carolina they are bringing suit against nevada or don't know whether this suit is against the government. >> host: what is the next best scenario? >> guest: i for one and not sure yucca mountain is totally out of the picture. obviously while harry reid is the head of the senate it is, but so much money has been spent on it and it is such a good site having been so well reinforced

that i don't know at the end of the day we will walk away from it but again that will be up to the department of energy and the nuclear regulatory commission. is at one side, two or three sites where the 100 and four sites we have today? >> host: good morning, a republican color. >> caller: good morning and good morning c-span listeners. i am wondering why nobody has gotten interested in t. boone pickens. i can remember as a kid, when oil wells were all over colin i around ultima, illinois and every one of the wells had these burning things of gas. everybody even then thought what a waste. they have not use that gas. i know there aren't so many oil wells now but there are wells that are cap, and they be oil has built up in them.

if they were to use the fuel as t. boone pickens suggest suggests i just wonder why i never hear the media pick pick up on t. boone pickens' ideas. he talks about wind power a loss but he does talk about fuel from the gas, from oil. please comment. >> guest: he is a big investment in that and he is certainly bit and addition area. again that is going to be something that is up to the individual companies to decide whether the economics are there for them to open up the cap well and whether in fact there is enough of the fuel out there. as you know t. boone pickens was going to have a very substantial windfarm which he then decided was not economically feasible or didn't like the way it looked at that point in time. it was a 200,000-acre field in order to produce the same amount of power that you get from an average nuclear reactor. and the economics just weren't

working for him at that point in time. oil was something the utilities themselves are going to have to decide if it is something to go back on, but again that is why we desperately need an energy bill. we need congress to set up parameters. we need them to say how we are going to go forward and make some decisions here to help the utilities because any one of these even if it is solar power or went power, that windfarm was between 10 and $12 billion. the nuclear facility that would put out the same amount of power is in capital costs i'm talking about, was six to $8 billion so there is a difference very even and cost. nothing is going to come cheap i think is the bottom line. >> host: what will be cheaper for the consumer? >> guest: at the end of the day on a per kilowatt faces nuclear as one of the most expensive-- least expensive forms of power, and these will change. as we get more efficient with things like solar panels and wind farms and the plates and

things like that that will bring costs down but right now nuclear isessxpenve on a per kilowatt faces are co- >> host: what is your organization's reaction to the epa announcement that they want to raise the threshold for greenhouse gas emissions, the emissions threshold of at least 75,000 tons a year, possibly more than 100,000 tons a year for power plants and industrial projects. first of all what you think they are doing this and secondly what is your reaction to that? >> guest: what they are doing is looking at what their responsibilities are under the clean air act and what the administration wants to do. that really is forming a lot of the thinking behind the way they prioritize the issues they take up and when they take them off. that has been ever thus so this is a reflection really of obama administration policies and where they want to start to push whether it is a part of a scenario where they try to push the hill into action are not. that is going to get to them but

epa certainly has regulatory responsibility moving forward. case doesn't take positions on things like that. case is about getting the information out to people so they can make informed decisions. we don't lobby on the hill for specific hill for specific pieces of legislation. numbers well. without question members will individually but not as part of a case. case is really the thinking behind case and asking people to go on line to that clean and safe energy.org and join because there is no membership fee and requirement is there a is strength in numbers and when elected officials in the utilities that utility cusack at its have to start make in decisions about whether or not to make the investment whether nuclear will be real or not, whether to put their money there, it helps them to look over their shoulder and say there are thinking people from a whole range of different organizations that think we should be at at least discussing this. don't take it off the table because of legacy issues that are no longer relevant to the way nuclear power is brought on

line today. >> host: a politico comment from a tweet from joe in new jersey. do you have any interest in returning to elected office? >> guest: no, i don't see that. i enjoy having a little more control over my life in playing with my grandchildren. >> host: you had a book about some of your disagreements with your party. it is my party, too. >> guest: i have the republican leadership council to get the republican party to a place where we are comfortable having disagreements and we don't have to hate one another because we are not in the same place and red tape dicing in a country as diverse as this one you are not going to have anybody in lockstep on a few social issues. >> host: good morning to a dell on our democrats line. you are on the air. go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: ms. whitman there is a proposed site for a nuclear facility in ohio and inasmuch as

our two state representatives, george voinovich and jean smith -- can you tell me at what. , at what stage this facility is as far as going ahead with the permit? >> guest: i can't. i am sorry, i don't know the status of individual sites. i know there are 22, 19 companies that have gone to the nuclear regulatory commission with 22 potential sites for bringing new reactors on but where each one of those individual sites stands in the whether for would be it would be regulatory process, whether the very beginning because the nrc is just beginning to process those applications and they are site-specific now so it would be at the earliest stages. but i don't know exactly, couldn't comment on where it is precisely. >> host: denniston columbus, ohio. >> caller: good morning. my question for you is the reason why people for the government or the government isn't using gravity as a power

source. it is very cheap, inexpensive and probably the lowest cost you can get. >> guest: again, i am not a scientist so i can tell you why they happened. it would clearly be that so far the economics have not worked out. i know for instance my company whitman strategy group is working with the developer on a green city in one of the things we looked at and trying to ensure that the city was going to be a lead city, the entire city was using title search, because it is right off and sean and incheon is the second-highest title searches in the world and that seemed to me a good way to use green power, but what we saw and maybe the same kind of thing i don't know how you capture gravity, i can't speak to what the technical obstacles are to bringing gravity on as a power source but i was fascinated when you thought about it made sense, in order to channel the power of the waves and the tide you would be changing the ecosystem

surrounding it because you would have to channel its. so there aren't a lot of possibilities out there, things that sound really good initially and sound good in the lab or on paper but when you get them into the fields and start to look at them they don't react and they don't work in the way you thought they might or you were expecting that they would. it doesn't mean you walk away from them. doesn't mean you don't look at gravity. i just can't tell you how you would go about capturing that in an efficient way to make power but if it is possible i am convinced there is somebody out there somewhere who is looking at it becausee have a lot of creativity going on in this area of energy. >> host: o the politics of nuclear energy the hill newspaper wrote about nuclear revival in little doubt the industry enjoys broader support on capitol hill and the president called for construction of new reactors in his budget request tripling the amount for loan guarantees to $54 billion irca what are you hearing from members on capitol hill?

>> guest: from members on capitol hill there is eight definite appetite. we have done a couple of studies and better than 50% of the population today in the country and in some instances depending on the question of over 60% of the people believed nuclear should be part of our energy future going forward so that is a dramatic shift from the 70s when we basically got out of the business entirely. >> host: it is a dramatic shift from the last couple of years. >> guest: from a political point of view, definitely. even harry reid says he is is not against nuclear, just against yucca mountain. >> host: chicago good morning on a republican line. >> caller: good morning everyone. i would like to comment on the first responders issue. what were these first responders think it about? they need to think about the long-term ramifications of all this stuff. these people should have thought before they try to-- that is

ridiculous and ms. whitman you are right. >> guest: thank you. i don't fault them for wanting to do everything they could do as fast as they wanted to do it. i was on the side of couple of times. i feel really badly that we weren't able to ensure the way they did at the pentagon where the military controlled the pentagon side. they didn't let anybody on without respirators and you don't have the problems today you are seeing with first responders from from the new york city sight. it was a difficult thing. it was a two-tier message that epa had to get out both to the responders on the site in people and downtown in general and lower manhattan in general but those people were focused on make any difference and it was just heartwrenching. many of them had not just good friends. i had good friends in those buildings. they also had family members and it was pretty tough to tell somebody to step down, step away, slow down because you have to protect yourself. they were thinking about themselves. >>ost: standardizing design

engineering training in operation reduces some of the cost of the nuclear power generation. what about the education skills, that sort of background required? where those folks coming from? >> guest: first of all we heard from someone already today who would bring that background from the nuclear navy. we have a lot of people coming out of the nuclear navy but case energy has been working with a number of universities in florida and some of the states where you see an appetite for nuclear working on new nuclear engineering programs in bringing people, training people in nuclear. florida power & light with miami-dade will guarantee jobs to people who get involved in this program after they come out of it so there's a lot of training. again it has been a question of is this serious? is there a future here? there is anyway because you have a number of the current people working on site who are eligible to retire in the next five years. you will have a significant

number retiring so anything to do with nuclear energy will be something ongoing for the foreseeable future with the existing reactors. >> host: a call from new jersey next, loch arbor and joanna going head head-on are democrats line. >> caller: good morning. ms. whitman, it being an advocate for environmental concerns and a strong wind when you were governor of our state, i know you are aware as everyone else, there is no safe way to store nuclear waste and that is the beginning of the conversation. you discuss the cost savings of the nuclear facility on line but never once mentioned the cost of ringing these facilities to the ability to function, and i don't understand why the taxpayer should be on the hook for guaranteed loans that banks won't offer because most of the facilities that have been begun went into default and now they

are closed and abandoned. the cost is astronomical and it is always way over what the budget is. it is just not feasible way of handling our future energy. sustainable energy can create jobs and if we are smart enough not to offshore the production of the needed materials and build these plants here, it could be a solution to our employment problem. esko i think we could do the same thing with nuclear as far as building big components. i see it as a big potential jobs creator. just a couple of things. first of all i have to disagree. i do believe that we are doing now in storing the spent fuel is saved. in fact the business administration did a study that said on a lost workday basis nuclear is one of the safest industries in which to work and safer than real estate and i guess you get chased by dogs on that one so it doesn't really count. nuclear is safe and if we get

into reprocessing which the french do. the french are most 80% nuclear power. the japanese, there are 50 nuclear reactors being built, over 50 around the world so nuclear is going forward safely and the difference between today and what we had when we did our first round of nuclear and by the way you are absolutely right, total costs are expensive. it is expensive to build a new reactor but it will be expensive to build than a new form of power. all parts consider there is no question what you have to look at us in the interest of the consumer what is your best on a per kilowatt basis because that is what really counts. but that banks were getting into loaning for nuclear because the government was saying we don't want nuclear. we stop nuclear back in 1970 for all intensive purposes but the difference today is of a 104 reactors we have in this country right now 95 use a different technology. today there are maybe five technologies.

there is a genie, westinghouse and the german one and i forget what the other two are. there will be a learning curve. there is right now these are being built around the world so we have a much more accurate idea of what the problems might be in bringing them on line. what the costs are going to be and in the past we saw huge cost. we saw delays and cost overruns. right now we are not thing that kind of thing in the most recent reactor that was brought on, brought up, twist their came in on budget so there is one of the 55 being built around the world i think there is one that is over budget significantly in the restaurant time and on budget. things have changed very much and we shouldn't forget that when we have a discussion about nuclear. it is not either/or. we have to stop thinking that way. you can still be investing in renewable technologies and investing in-based power. you don't have to have one or the other because we need them

all. >> host: patricia is our last call, atlanta, michigan, independent. >> caller: and million thank yous for c-span. hello ms. whitman. i am thankful to you for your interest in conservation and the environmental concerns and thann thank you for continuing in your experiments. i would like you to speak to the program that i heard i believe on 60 minutes a few weeks ago concerning the new technology that is being tested in california. i think it came out of silicon valley. i think walmart and fedex are two of the california companies that promises to be able to put independent energy in every building in the country without any kind of electrical web or whatever you call that, the transportation problems that we

have. >> guest: the empress treks are. i didn't see that. i don't know about that but i will tell you there are some exciting things going on. i'm that bored of the company, texas instruments and they are developing a chip which produces power out of vibration. we don't feel it but this building is constantly moving. sometimes, but constantly moving. these tips can go to the wall and produce the power that will make the lights come on so there are all kinds of exciting things like that going on. there is no question we are going to be so much smarter and another 10 years and we are today but what we have to recognize is that we have a projected 23% increase in electricity demand by 2030. a lot of people like no and the environmental community say we are going to have electric cars and that will be great for the environment. that is true but those cars will only be as good as the power used to produce, to provide that electricity so we have to be thinking that way to map.

we are going to need to bring new technologies up to a scale where they make sense for the country as a whole because they are a long way from that. we focus on that and get that done that we also have to meet our immediate needs. >> host: christine todd whitman, you can find out more about the urbanization at clean and safe energy.or. thanks for being with us. >> guest: my pleasure.

which for presidents live past 90 years old? they were john adams, herbert hoover, ronald reagan and gerald ford. bind these and other presidential facts in c-span's newly updated book, who is buried in grant's tim? >> it is a guidebook, a travelogue if you well but it is also kind of a mini-history work of biography of each of these presidents and let's face it you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. speedy resource guide to every presidential gravesites, the story of their final moments and insights about their lives.

who is buried in grant's tomb now available at your favorite bookseller or get a 25% discount at the publisher's web site, public affairs books.com. type in grants grant's tomb at checkout. >> next on america and the courts the use of foreign law in u.s. court cases. this panel includes the us guest gillian chief justice and chief judge dennis jacobs of the second circuit court of appeals. from the new york city bar association, this is an hour and 15 minutes. speak good evening. i am pat hynes. i'm the president of the association of the bar of the city of new york and it is my pleasure to welcome you here this evening, and as i mentioned we are being covered in this program by c-span and we are very delighted that they are covering this program because it is a very important issue and a very important subject for us all to be discussing.

this is a particularly wonderful opportunity for this bar association to really honor and focus on the international aspect of the interplay between the city bar and all of its international activities. tonight is one of those wonderful occasions where we bring together the lawyers who have an interest in practice and participate in the international community of legal issues that this association is so involved with. it is my pleasure to have with us tonight the honorable robert s. french, chief justice of the high court of australia, and just as french, we are really delighted to have you. it is a great honor to have you

graced this great hall of hours, and to share with us your thoughts, because you are really acknowledged as an expert in this area if in your writings and lectures on this topic. we also have to homegrown heroes of our own here tonight. we have chief judge, dennis g. jacobs of the second circuit court of appeals of new york and the former chief judge, judith kaye of the court of appeals of the state of new york. both of these judges have been wonderfully active in this association and we are delighted that they continue and are participating tonight in this program. i would also like to welcome our moderator, professor josé alvarez and also thanks justice

doris cohen and mark meyer, chair of our foreign comparative law committee, for putting together this wonderful program. this topic, the use of foreign law in domestic courts, is very fitting for the new york city bar which has long been active internationally with so many of our members having international practices or otherwise having been involved in continued to be involved in international causes. the city bar has 16 committees focused on international affairs. with many more committees addressing international topics through their work. we actually have more than 160 committees of this association, so we touch on-- there are very few areas we don't touch on and an and certainly the inter-national law areas when we give particular focus to. to give you an idea of some of the international activity that this bar association has an

engaged in just over the last few months, we had a delegation of lawyers meeting with the beijing and shanghai bar. they travel to china to establish a working relationship between those bars and hours, to address issues including the independence of lawyers, which is very critical. last fall we sponsored a mission to rwanda, and as part of our continuing involvement with that country, to educate law enforcement, judicial personnel and non-governmental organizations, on handling cases of gender-based violence. we have issued many reports regarding the threat of terrorism and the interplay between national security and civil liberties and virtually every month we present programs on international issues including an upcoming program just to give you an example, on islamic law, which is one of a series of programs we have been giving on islamic law.

at this moment, several association committees that have been engaged in global climate change are developing a work plan to follow up on the recent copenhagen conference. just this week a number of our committees have begun gearing up to provide whatever legal assistance we can do the people in haiti. and this includes a clinic we are running next week to help haitians in the united states to apply for temporary protective status, which has been granted by the president under our immigration laws. this is very important to the haitian community and we are very proud we are able to gear up so quickly to be of assistance and that's very important area. i am proud of the work that we do in the international arena and i am proud we are able to present programs like this, which is of such great quality and interest.

i will now turn the program and the podium over to our most effective and energetic chair of our foreign and comparative law committee, mark meyer. [applause] >> thank you. i have a easy task in easy task in the short task of welcoming you hear. on behalf of the committee on foreign and comparative law and i might point out that the program had our president pat hynes mentioned on islamic law is also the program on imperative law. the only other thing i have to say to you tonight as i want to take her to people who are particularly helpful in putting this program together. one of them is herbert rubin, who is sitting right in the audience here. without whose help we would not have this program. [applause] and the other is the person that i am now going to in today's to you, too was able to work with mr. rubin to put this program together, and that is the honorable justice doris cohen of

the new york state supreme court. dataset, that is my welcome so i hope you enjoy the program. [applause] >> good evening to all of you. welcome. it is indeed a pleasure and an honor to interview as our distinguished speakers and moderator. i think you would agree with me that it is in on enviable task, as you might've noticed that c-span cameras in here and i have been given a short amount of time to do these introductions. a task made even more difficult because each one of our speakers has accomplished much in their respective careers. let me begin by introducing the person who has traveled the furthest to get here. chief justice robert french irca we owe him a debt of gratitude for his generosity and traveling to the united states on a

speaking tour of our law schools and bar association's. by way of background, i met justice french at the aspen institute's justice in society seminar almost two years ago. the other attendees included other judges, private practitioners and the public interest attorneys, the dean of fordham law school and professors and attorneys from new york law colombia and john marshall colombia and john marshall law school in chicago. at the conclusion, the chief justice happened to remark that he would be happy to come back to the united states to speak to our law schools and bar association's reg of those, it is because of his remark that we are all here today, as it was a good excuse for me to her range for him to speak to the law schools in the northeast with and i'll tear your motive.

i now freely confess, so we could get him here on a half of the city bar. this event has been more than a year in planning and i am sure you can appreciate justice french's sacrificing coming to the states. even more when i tell you the weather-- the seat of the high court of mr. elliott is a sunny 86 degrees and will be in the '90s the rest of the week. after new york the next up is chicago, the windy city. he suggested the month of january, not me. chief justice french was sworn in at the 12th, as the 12th chief justice of 12 chief justice of the high court of australia in 2008. prior to that he had been a judge for 21 years having been appointed to the estero in federal court at age 39 e-echo he has served as a judge of the supreme court of the australian

capital territory and it nonresident member of the supreme court of fiji. he has demonstrated a passion for access to justice including founding the astoria aboriginal legal services in serving on almost every legal board of any significance in ostrow you. he holds a bachelor of science and a bachelor of law from the university of western australia. chief justice dennis jacobs was appointed to the united states court of appeals or the second circuit in 1992 having been nominated by george h. w. bush. he became chief judge in 2006. a native new yorker, judge jacobs was a partner at simpson thatcher and bartlett from 1980 until his additional appointment, where he handle complex cases involving such issues as reinsurance and environmental cleanup. you might be interested to know that it has been reported that one of his many successes at the

firm was to force mohamed ali and ernie shapers into the ring at madison square garden. he has served as a member of the committee on judicial resources of the judicial conference of the united states since 1997 and has chaired since 1999. he received his b.a. degree from queens college, his m.a. from new york university and his jd degree from the new york university school of law. turning to our next panelist, i am certain most of you know judith kaye. prior to her new career as litigation group. you are under understandably aware her career has been distinguished by many. the first female partner in the law firm she worked in prior to becoming a judge. indeed, she was the first woman to ever serve on new york's highest court and she was the first female chief judge of the court of appeals.

she served as a chief judge of the new york court of appeals for 15 years until her retirement, so to speak-- yes, in 2008. she gained a national reputation for her groundbreaking decisions and her innovative reforms to the new york court system, including changing the jury system and establishing community and problem-solving courts. her reforms have been implemented by many other state courts in our and are internationally known. john whitman, the current chief judge, was quoted in the new york state bar association journal as saying quote, chief judge kaye's legacy demonstrate she is one of the most influential jurists of her generation. she is a graduate of barnard college and nyu school of law. last but not least, we are extremely fortunate to have as our moderator, josé enrique

alvarez who is the herbert and rose rubin professor of international law at nyu school of law. professor alvarez is a graduate of harvard undergrad and law school and prior to teaching it and why do he was the hamilton fish professor of international law and diplomacy at columbia law and its director of the center on global legal problems. let's give a hand to all of the panelists and the moderator and i turn over the podium to the distinguished professor. [applause] >> well the organizers here and the judges agree to have a fireside conversation. we don't have a fireside and this panel setup does not lend itself to a free-flowing conversation but that is what we are going to try to do. that is what the judges want to do, exchange ideas among themselves after they have a brief presentation.

what i'm supposed to do is get out of their way. but, i can't resist at least introducing the topic. from where i said foreign law appears to become relevant in national courts in at least two context that you will hear from judge friends that i'm oversimplifying things. but to oversimplify, first as a subject of emulation or inspiration. that is, in order to interpret national law or even perhaps a country's constitution. second, it may be used directly as applicable law, given applicable choice of law rules and as we all well-known the first use is prompted highly politicized debate among justices that the u.s. supreme court and members of congress. some of whom have you been proposed impeaching judges who do what we are about to do. that is discussed discuss foreign law in the context of national law. these debates have resulted from occasions when u.s. justices and

judges have sought guidance or inspiration from international law such as treaty-- treaties banning the juvenile death penalty in interpreting the u.s. constitution. the organizers specifically directed me thought to address international law, presumably on the reasonable premise that foreign law is not the same thing as international law and perhaps because they thought that dealing with the second of the choice of law issues in foreign law was enough for discussion. but in preparing for this full chat however i found that it is actually hard to cleanly segregate out these two subjects. it is not at all clear that first, those who oppose the use of foreign law really know the difference between foreign and international law, that that is they seem to use them interchangeably in the proposed legislation that would impeach the judges. i am not so sure that they would regard the use of foreign law as

any more legitimate than the use of international law. that is, if they think one is controversial than they are likely to think all of them are. the other reason that it is hard to separate cleanly the two subjects is that the traditional sources of international law indeed often raise questions of foreign law. you will hear i hope, judge jacobs on our panel discussed the case of pro-v. crowell circa 2000, the same issue by the way argued in the u.s. supreme court and they are the question is determining the meaning of a treaty and they are the court termed in part to help other countries laws and their courts have actually interpreted the treaty. by most accounts there for using foreign law in the interpretation of the treaty. similarly, when you are trying to figure out that they go race of the customary international

law and general principles of law, often we turn to foreign law to figure out those sources. indeed some of you may know that the second circuit ongoing tort claims act case in which the parties were asked to brief the question of whether international law recognizes as an international tort for purposes of the statute, the tort claim statute, criminal and civil liability of corporations and at least one amicus brief i know it than that case than that case addresses that question by engaging in comparative analysis and diverse foreign laws on corporate liability. and there is also good reason to address this question. whether or not foreign law and international law are to be used to interpret national law, because frankly many of those here i suspect in the audience and not just me, find it hard to resist this glorious opportunity to raise race at the raise it among these illustrious judges. though i would certainly like to hear the respective judges

opinions on whether australia laws and/or its constitution u.s. federal law and its constitution or new york state law for its constitution should seek guidance from foreign law or whether as chief justice roberts suggested at his confirmation hearings, seeking such guidance is as arbitrary as choosing to hear only from your friends at a cocktail party. now, given a wonderful opportunity that this panel presents i would also welcome marjah disputes on whether the question of learning from foreign law looks different depending on where you said. that is, what kind of court engages in foreign law comparisons? trial, intermediate appellate court, supreme court of the state level or federal level. but i suspect some of our conversation will touch on current issues are pricing from the direct application of foreign law. this includes questions raised by the united states now venerable federal procedure

which affirms the determination to foreign law, may be reached or a number of different groups. expert testimony to judicial notice for example and that these questions are questions of law that are fully reviewable on appeal. i assumed that none of the judges would want to return to the days when the terminations of foreign law were considered matters of fact to be determined by juries and presumably are uncorrectable on appeal but i am curious as to whether the application of 44.1 or comparable rules in australia at that the court level are leaning in the judges views to reliable determination to foreign law. is a typically expensive, sometimes protected battle of the experts pitting for example my former colleagues at columbia, george berman against hahn's schmidt really the best way to secure a solid determination of what foreign law actually is. would it be better if judges

take advantage of the flexibility of a rule like 44.1 which permits after all the court to consider any relevant material or source to appoint their own experts, engage in their own resource or take judicial notice more often, or even perhaps have the party appointed experts engage in a joint come for station before them. as is sometimes done in arbitral settings. on the other hand are some foreign law issues particularly when the court, our court is asked to predict unsettled questions of foreign law elsewhere, are some of those issues just too difficult for her judges? this might be suggested by a current issue with the new york federal court at the moment. namely disputes among district court set to whether it is proper to certify a class-action in securities litigation involving foreign plaintiffs. this is the alston case versus the defending case. our determination to form a

issue sometimes so hard, specially given the language difficulties, that it would be preferable to dismiss the case on the basis of non-convenience? on the other hand if determination of a foreign countries laws no more or no less complicated than determining the law of illinois and in say a new york courtroom? finally another series of questions emerges from the application of conflict of law or rule. does the application of foreign law pursuant to or conflict rules, is that adequate to the age of globalization or does it sometimes lead to injustice? when for example under u.s. law they commission of the tort is governed by foreign law, to try to do nor the fact that under foreign law damages are substantially lower than they would be in the united states, as just one example. i have lots of questions to pose to the judges but i think you should hear from them and then by the way, we hope that there is time to open it up to questions so have them ready.

there were marker from there so you you were also captured on c-span. we will proceed in alphabetical order with a short initial statement. >> professor albert is in justice and my colleagues on the bench, chief judge jacobs and former chief judge kaye, it is a pleasure and privilege to be a privilege to be here to my. when we are talking about comparative law of course we have to focus on differences as well as similarities are co-one difference that occurred to me was they relation to the process of appointment of judges between the united states in australia. when the day i got back from the aspen institute in which i met doris and other people who organize my visit here, i was sitting in my chambers as a federal judge and suddenly a

text message appeared indicating the attorney general of the commonwealth wanted to bring me in. the phonecall forwarded. so, i am probably the first chief justice in australia to have been approached by a text message for an appointment and it makes a striking contrast i think with the procedures that followed in the u.s.. i was going to begin with some statement of principle and i was thinking of seneca who said i will take it straight into the english, that i am human and nothing human is foreign to me, however i think a statement which more accurately reflects the tenor of my remarks is the recent allen's film which is whatever works. in other words i approach, and i think that at of most is trillion judges to this issue,

is essentially pragmatic. one of our constitutional lawyers, professor saunders observed a variety of the usage of foreign law in domestic courts is fast and makes it impractical to design any typology. i certainly proposed not to do that but i would like to say areas which from a practical point of view i see as a long serving judge, those areas in which we most frequently encounter. the application of foreign law or the use of foreign law in australian courts. professor albert is just referred to the use of the country when a choice of law rule requires that the law, that that laws to apply to the determination of the rise and liabilities of the parties by abilities of the parties in a court and by the high court is

the applicable court in tort cases. secondly, determining the law of another country is a fact which might be relevant to the determination of rights and liabilities and proceedings governed by a study in law and a quick example, you got the managing director of the distilling company and a joint venture of an indian company authorizes the indian company on the basis of the ministerial approval to certain things to happen has occurred, turns out there was another ministerial pru both set to be required. his company has negligence in making that an and the inquirer the trial was what is the state of india and the practice in relation to those approvals in relation, so that is an example of foreign law effective to liability. or to the existence of rights. thirdly, where another country as part of a transnational

scheme which gives affect our obligations under a treaty into which australia is also a party on whether the domestic law of another country uses language or imports principles which are reflected in that treaty and where one seeks to secure a degree of uniformity and approach. a recent example which has been agitated in the second circuit here is in relation to the hague treaty relation to objection of international affection of children. a case called crowell and fourthly, where the love another and other countries played a part in the development of this trillion law applies in this chilling context in both constitutional and statutory and our constitution and elements of its content to the u.s. constitution. there are also differences in their art patients when we will look to u.s. constitutional jurisprudence in order to assist us in constitutional

interpretation or application in australia, and similarly and statutory context. the next area and the last area i would mention is where the law of another country deals with issues similar to those with which it is trillion judge might have to do and we know there are areas of jurisprudence in which, which really crossover boundaries. for example we talk about competition law, intellectual property law, corporate regulation, insolvency and a friday of areas or countries has barro from another and the observations in and foreign courts in relation to statutes and those common areas help us solve a problem of application in australian law. the broad areas which i see issues arising from the use of foreign law in this chilling courts, there are practical

questions about the use which have to be addressed and questions i think of a practical rather than principle character, the difficulty in the selection criteria for choosing between different approaches that one might favor, the selection criteria for choosing between interpretations of the law within one country and the difficulties in areas of what i called marmots if are value laden areas, which of course has given rise to the debate in the united states and in cruel and unusual punishment context. these are questions of a radical , but i don't think any of them raises and a principle objection to doing so. >> thank you very much. judge jacobs. >> professor alvarez has averted to the highly politicized debates in the united states

over the use and uses of foreign law, and in the course of that debate, it often happens that proponents, advocates for the broadening effects of foreign law, advocates for using foreign law as an inspiration for the development of american constitutional law and for the development of our law in general. ..

the choice of law application of treaties not to mention maritime law we and many other areas would be covered today but the idea american courts are shut off from influences the broader and other courts are on the world is mistaken. there are developing countries that borrow from well-developed bodies of law and small countries that don't generate a large population of cases and wide range of subjects and the borough as the need but if we are thinking about different nations with ramified of legal

doctrines and appreciable what if president there is very little in the way of velte reach between and among legal systems. the country's new look to other european countries but they do not look to thailand or through or japan and even within the european union they tend to look to the neighboring countries to provide of hungarian courts looked the president or vice versa. german courts tend to look at the law and german-speaking countries such as austria just the way francophone african countries look to france and the nations of the commonwealth and former members of the british commonwealth look to each other culturally speaking the use of the floor and wall tends to be a matter of light reaching out to like rather than a matter of

cultural cross a position. in the united states state courts faced with problems of domestic law we. the federal circuit's look to other circuits and did district court opinions and state law and district courts within the circuit took to each other and so on. if hypothetically counterfactual leave the united states consisted 50 separate countries or if the 11th circuit's constituted the 11 countries one would immediately appreciate the differences among them in terms of demographics. geography and resources, industry and leisure, organization, history and culture. this is not like when the provinces of look-see board looking to the law of another luxembourg province. in these terms, consideration of on the mystical and the united states is more advanced, more

systematic, more frequent and more productive than i submit anywhere else. of course for us there is no choice given the size of the u.s. population, our intensity justness, the volume of cases and federal system we operate by necessity as several court systems that look to each other, borrow from each other and disagree with one another. our united states supreme court is chiefly in the business of resolving the conflict is thus the u.s. law is settled in the supreme court much the same way that the law of the european union is settled by the european court of justice. within new york state, disagreement among the four appellate divisions is taken as a sign intervention is needed by the new york court of appeals and states with two other states. but they look to other states on the discriminating basis.

as a lawyer practicing in new york county what do cite cases of lead the siena which has a different system or mississippi what seems to the many new yorkers and exotic new place, or new jersey for example. in utah would use light louisiana, new york? what ever would be sought by searching foreign law what ever is achieved by openness to other influences is covered by the federal systems of american law. we had the benefit of cross fertilization, inspiration, practical solutions, experiences, success and failure elsewhere. the plan to the insight and invention and the avoidance of sterile doctrines. that's why i reject the idea the united states law is linker pour inslee did. we have no shortage of competing

views. thank you. [applause] >> i will start with the sentence -- the word that comes to mind having heard my esteemed colleague and friend, chief judge jacobson. oh my goodness, this is going to be a wonderful dialogue here between chief justice french and justice jacobs, and in a sense i feel like an innocent bystander as a former state court judge, chief judge now retired old and retold as a lawyer. this has been described as a highly politicized and publicized debate regarding the use of the four and law in domestic courts and indeed it is but if you think hard about it is a date that you see that the

federal level. the united states supreme court, individual justices of the supreme court, the united states congress. you don't hear it that much of the state level, do you? and in a sense it surprises me a if you think of the disjuncture between the wonderful introduction we had by the president of the city bar association. why on earth to be of 16 committees on international law at the bar association? why sent lawyers to china? why have a mission to rwanda? are we teaching everybody? are we learning nothing? the american bar association spent the past year, two years on an initiative called the world will fall initiative rowley where we are sending many lawyers abroad and welcoming them here. it's just kind of a startling debate when we talk about looking to the foreign law at

all in domestic disputes in a day when we are such an international community and increasingly globalized and crowded and flattened and interconnected world in this 21st century. we have so many international treaties and conventions and my colleague would say of course it's necessary in that sense when there is a treaty or convention there is that necessary category of instances where we are drawn into looking at all of other nations but in this day we have such an international practice. we have something called the american society of international law. i have the honor to serve on the board of advisers where there are training programs all through the united states on laws of other nations. we have constant visits from

goodness, lawyers from australia , from all over the world so in a sense as an innocent bystander state court judge it is a surprising controversy in the 21st century. i agree entirely with chief judge jacobs that we are not talking about the in discriminant use of the law of the jurisdictions. we are talking about the reason of informed reference to the laws of other states which is a very common practice in the state court system. it's part of our great common law tradition. it occurred to me there was discussion between the difference of foreign law and international law the i guess as a new york judge i might say the law of new jersey is a foreign

law jurisdiction and it is. every day of the week we are looking for it in the construction of the common law and statutes and indeed in reading our constitution as well we are informed and enlarged by looking at the law of other jurisdictions, not the indiscriminate reference to them but the cautious and informed reference to the lobby of other states and nations. and that brought me to an issue that i thought i would put on the table, and i have just read so many of chief justice's writings and i picked out a quote i thought it pretty well which is we don't want to bring a kukui into our nest of domestic lobby. this certainly is the truth. so knowing what the law is of

other nations it becomes extremely important. and i say we are on many levels attempting to inform ourselves about the law other nations so that we can be intelligent participants in the international committee. so those are my two faults as the innocent bystander state court judge a, -- accustomed. in the 21st century to learn as well as to teach. >> thank you. [applause] the gauntlet has been thrown out and i will turn it back to see who wants to pick it up to chief justice french.

what we've heard from judge jacobs is use it if you must be cautious because you probably will get it wrong. it doesn't happen all that often and in fact it happens a lot more than you think in the u.s. and i suspect the subtle messages that in your country your site to your friends, too, other common-law countries in particular. what do you think? >> it's absolutely true that we will go to the countries with similar traditions. if i am doing a review foreign law and a topic which might be of assistance to me those i would look to would be the united kingdom, canada, the u.s. and new zealand because they're the context of where there are obvious differences the context in which legal decisions are

made, judicial decisions are made. the traditions underpinning of those, the judicial makeup is very similar to that which we apply. if i went into europe for example i might find greater risks associated with involvement of several countries even in areas of common interest such as competition law which of course is one a ring of major importance in the european community and a further upheld we go chief judge jacobs mentioned some of the risky things. i recently had a conversation with chief justice of china and i was asking about the equal protection clause in the constitution because there's been some suggestions that although the courts are not allowed to touch the decision

there was private action based on some of the constitutional guarantees and through his interpreter he said yes we have seen some implication and then explained 400 public officials had been prosecuted for work for corruption so it took from that equal protection so what is equal protection mean from one context whether? would end of any provision, that's not a problem before issue of the common tradition, common history, common judicial method, the riskier it becomes to apply for an all but that is just selection criteria. as i said before pragmatic one. >> one follow-up. why is there not that the same political debate in australia or over interpretation of the

constitution? >> any answer to that question might rest on the premise of understanding why this is such a debate in the u.s., so i have to have a disclaimer that i speak hypothesizing about the u.s. based on the knowledge about the system. we don't have a bill of rights in that constitution. we have certain guarantees, trial by jury and freedom of religion but basically brings in the equivalent of the bill of rights filled with the drafting stage. they have failed to do that. this means we do not have the sink and a societal balancing decisions to make that you get in human rights litigation. we do not have litigation for example about where there is a constitutional right to protection against the law criminalizing abortion and based on the right of privacy.

so it is highly charged decisions based very much on social values which may not be shared amongst the large majority of the community do not fall too close to make. and to that extent, the approach would be described as a final linguistic even though a fine some of the decisions we make have political certificates. so, use of foreign law is not seen as something which contaminates if you like your matteo decision making process these on the australian courts. >> i guess i will turn back to judge jacobs because somewhere in your remarks i salles the hint of your speech the secret life of judges. in the sense that he liked about judges inbred preference for the legalistic outcomes among other things in which the legal profession in power to the

judge's and in power the judges themselves. is there a suggestion that when you turn to the floor and wall you may be doing just that and that's part of the secret life of those judges who want to turn to the foreign law? >> yes. [laughter] four and a flaw is not much used by judges unless they can't find the law they want domestically and locally. indigent one doesn't have the impression that judges searching for an all to get it in a state of bewilderment wondering where will this lead, but inspiration can i draw. one has the impression judges are looking to the foreign law in order to find support for their own inclinations, and i think i not only every with

chief justice french, i couldn't say it better. i think that one of the problems with the application of the foreign law and the inspiration level in the united states has to do with the politicization of the law and the tremendous power of lawyers and judges and the happiness with which judges contemplate the opportunity to resolve intractable enormous consequential issues and the more you seize those kind of issues and wish to deal with these kind of things, the more you have to make it up as you go along and if you do that it's nice to have some kind of authority and often you can only find it abroad. >> that's interesting i think if i might join in here. our discussion this far is so

abstract in general that it's hard to pin it down and the board chief judge jacobs used about a judge's inclination's is such an example of something so highly generalized. i would say certainly if a judge is just grabbing something out of the air and it's the kind of conversation chief justice roberts described cocktail party conversation that's one thing but what about the judges very well reasoned conclusion? any condition that ripens into conclusion based on research and president a new question because it's new questions that come to the court and the judge has fully reasoned out the question, researched the question and

included in the judge's research because the lawyers funded and excited and exported our decisions and i would agree with chief justice french we naturally look to things that are familiar to us because we are solid and sound and try to be. what on earth is wrong with that? is of course the wild inclination is not something you look to support with the law of china or rwanda. we cannot begin to understand but that still doesn't exclude the vast array of experience of jurisdictions that we have studied and understand and we visit and try to exchange ideas with people come here and we go there. why cut ourselves off? am i not supposed be asking the

questions? i'm sorry, professor. >> go for each other's throats. >> no, i -- but i say as long as we talk in these great abstractions, i'm just missing the point. it's not an inclination. it is a well reasoned sound conclusion that looks to establish precedents like jurisdictions. sprick i do agree i've been talking in generalities but i'm afraid what happens the more i get specific the morgan trouble like it. but -- >> it's the chief justice of australia you're joining issue with. [laughter] >> but clearly we look to the lobby of the country's. that is sympathetic to our instinct is. we wouldn't think in my view looking to the law of singapore concerning littering and we might not be inclined to look at

the law of sadr city beah on the issue of the marriage or china on organ donation -- >> we are not on instincts and inclinations, we are talking about sound and reason conclusions. >> -- inclinations suggest the context in which this dva is going on is tied into those normative large issues that you spoke of and a great example to singapore the of a cruel and unusual punishment but he might appoint to borrow if you are a death penalty abolitionist from the jurisprudence of singapore has developed about it. if i can get a couple of concrete examples where one gets away from the notion of the inclination and into the concept of inquiry probably because it doesn't involve the of large sort of social question that fuels the debate here and this

is my experience as a trial judge in two cases i refer extensively to foreign law. one was a case involving the question of whether an academic researcher working at a university in australia was entitled to retain intellectual property by way of taking out a pen in relation to an invention he had developed in the course of his research which extended over the 20 year period in the complicated situation and the question was whether there was any assignment of such rights. the question was whether there was a term and plan on his contract that would sign the property rights to the university. and that is a problem of global interests. a lot of countries seem to have tried to wrestle with it in

different ways. amongst the areas of the ball i reviewed in my judgment was that of the united states. in the united states as i understand, the academic who works for the university and produces something effectively provides the university with licensed to deal with the invention but he or she still retains the fundamental rights and its subject to statutory intervention. that was helpful to me -- not everybody found because what they have it automatically assumed isn't applied by law it is assigned to the university may look at canada i have a mixed up situation there and include most of the authorities running employer relationships and not the peculiar relationship with the independent researcher with the freedom to publish which will force destroyed and there for

the question but that support such an implication. so i found that very helpful just in assessing the value of my own thoughts have got it and my solution in the and there was no turning by law but it is a special law application in my own court which my colleagues deal with in due course but the second case again in the area involving what is called the doctrine of contributing french and a term that has found its way to australia in the western million stable commercial product to supply something to somebody else to use to build infringement infringing product you don't infringe as a contributor if it is a stable commercial product. that term i had to construe and the statute. that term had its origin backend tough 30 is. it turned into a provision of the patent stable commercial

commodities i think. mike rita cosby and mendicant found its way into the european community which found its way into the british, germany and france and also across to japan and other countries i didn't have time to serve on, but looking at its development as a concept and policy behind it in the u.s. jurisprudence and its application of the u.k. helped me then to look at what are the options in my constitutional crisis with the term in australia and what's the kind of policy being guided first and foremost by the statute. so there are examples of what you might call the inquiry rather than inclination. >> that is not -- i would think that there's not a lot of disagreement as to whether we should look to the law. royte? those are instances they would be ready agreement. >> all sorts of new things like biotechnology and new forms of intellectual property and the

newest of the maltese piracy we would want to look to other countries. >> what is it that is ruffling so many of the federal fetters? >> i think like a lot of issues people debate extensively. people got together with lawyers and actually worked out with the area of disagreement would be would not be huge but i think that the need to look to the foreign law when you have to such as for the interpretation of treaties or whatever gives a certain facility a certain view s to the availability of the sources and the usefulness of doing it in areas such as

biotechnology, new ideas and intellectual property, land claims for countries that have not had experience with it, that when that gets carried over into areas that are better subjects for legislative decision rather than traditional decision there's a lot of trouble. as far as i'm concerned a legislator should look at experience of other countries in deciding how to resolve complex issues of domestic politics. why not? why not check with other countries doing with their experience has been. when judges do it i think there is a strong tendency to choose those things that reinforce you're own instincts and i think the public has a strong sense that that is the kind of thing that goes on and i don't think it's healthy for the court

system. >> back again to the instincts and inclinations and now another word which is what is a political issue and what is a legal issue, and that is really the nub of the problem. >> in the united states almost every issue becomes a legal issue and that is the problem and i think that is why -- i don't think this issue is as ferociously debated and they even seem to need to seem strange ferociously debating it here. >> defend the acceptance of the sort of example i gave as a routine appropriate use it suggests that there will be a large volume of litigation and decision making which the umm controversy oil decision of contentious judgments but is the

ferocity about those sort of spilling over into other areas because one got the impression the senate resolution and so forth was not very discriminating in that respect. >> we should ask professor alfred is what he thinks. >> we did promise the audience they would get a crack at two guice so now's the time. the microphone is over there. >> except in a sense we are warming up to the problem. [laughter] >> if we have begun to define the problem haven't we? >> let's give a couple of minutes to you but folks can line up at the microphone. but i think that the controversy may extend even when we all agree for an law is applicable and i take the case. this is a disagreement for those of you that don't mean of the

heat convention on several aspects of international child of detection and judge jacobs disagreed with judge sotomayor and partly on the basis of how other countries have interpreted the treaty and i think both judges jacobs and sotomayor have strong views they are on the interpretation of the treaty but it strikes me even all of us here would agree that you may need to and it is appropriate to turn to the floor in law and how other countries interpret the treaty. that convention has 181 parties. my recollection is i did not see 181 citations how other countries have interpreted it. are there problems even in determining and using foreign law even when we agree it's

absolutely essential to look at? >> yes. i mean, the case that never seems -- it generates controversy that never seems to die down a arises from the meaning of two words, access to a child, custody of the child. the convention guarantees custody of the child by assuring a parent who takes a child away from a parent who has custody rights may return the child. on the other hand if a child is taken and the other parent is left behind in the country has no more right of access of the visitation than a child who does not have to be in return and there are other remedies that have provided for in the convention and so then judge sotomayor and i had to sort out

whether there is a rite of custody when the only write a father had was an order of a court saying the child could not be taken out of the country and that is just a summary of with the case is but i think -- i discovered they are inadequate tools for finding out what fill mall of the other countries is when you have to compare all of those cases. for one thing i am unilingual. would be easier if i were polyglot and the other two members of the panel were not and in which countries do you look to? right now would you look to the wall of brazil for the law of child custody? do you need a consensus as professor albert is point out there's 180 some of the

signatories. what is consensus? and consensus of what countries? not only that, i find it difficult figuring out when i was looking at a law in a case for another country whether it is from a court of last resort to or whether it is a court the issues advisory opinions. that sometimes happens. i think the court in the european union will sometimes issued advisory opinions. the supreme court of israel will issue an advisory opinions and it becomes difficult. i'm told that it's the highest court of france but i don't know what it is and i would have to do research to find goldcorp was issuing the opinion on reading assuming i could read which i can't so i think it was very

troublesome and parched of the this agreement existed between me and then judge said the plan -- george sotomayor to read the same issue was argued last week and i assume judge sotomayor has lummis surgeon advantage sorting of this issue but i will read with the supreme court has to say and when that happens that will be the law as far as i'm concerned. >> i want to address this question of different courts. >> it sort of returns to my point of discriminative and cautious and careful reference to the law of other nations and we do have a law issue, not a political issue in the case that was destroyed in the supreme court of the united states and we have to learn about the courts.

goodness, the nation of english just revamped its court system. we need to understand better so that we can be careful and make a correct use of the laws of other nations. >> the other thing i thought you might want to comment on his you have written very eloquently and will constitutionalism, the virtues of defending each state of the u.s. own constitution and its own view. the respective how we interpret even the same phrases in the federal constitution so to some extent you don't care about the debate at the federal level; is that correct? >> i don't think i could have said it more articulately, not that i don't care. i do care profoundly and it does inform our view but we do have an independent obligation to read the constitution of the state of new york. indeed every attorney takes oaf

to honor and safeguard the constitution of the state of new york as well as the state of the constitution of the united states but again it's not a careless and in discriminant few of the constitutional rights. that's the label. there's a lot of labels and activist becomes the label when there's a disagreement as to the result. that is the alternate slam on course with the are construing the constitution's that you're transgressing the judiciary. that's where the debate lies and yes i would defend not just our right as the state court system and high court in particular to read the language and the words and history in all for our state constitution but we do it responsibly that's what we are supposed to do.

>> oster-loth in federalism come to play in any way, judge french? >> the state constitution's a productive and real statutes. they don't have with the status -- the of the status of the full banking like the united states and from now and again we get cases involving applications they tend to be once in a blue moon. bear in mind by the way i'm talking of the country about the same population wise as new york state so we are in a different ball game. >> we can now turn to questions from the floor. be sure to ask them through the microphone please. >> the judges here have stated that they should inform themselves of the speed of other friendly nations such as for example the countries of europe. but the movement of europe has been more and more western europe anyhow to the sharia law and the mission of the rights of

women and accepting of the laws of countries origin of many of their immigrant groups. is that something we should be looking at and informing ourselves of and we should be following here in the united states? >> i think that's a very useful point of observation. 100 years ago the supreme court in oregon relied on a foreign law to support the principle that there should be limits on a number of hours women should work. this cuts different ways and it's a very dicey proposition. it's one thing to make up your mind and decide something on the basis of american law and that you're going to change it.

it's something else to decide you decide on the basis of some worldwide consensus. then what do you do when it turns out to be a mistake? in any even, i think the -- as i said earlier i think judges looking at other areas of law are not likely when they are considering issues like same-sex marriage to look at the laws of saudi arabia and i think your question sort of suggests if you are going to look at the foreign law mabey it's desirable to follow your preferences. >> i would not for a moment suggest judges should decide cases based on the world wide consensus. i hope you don't think i did.

>> i've got a question for chief judge kay to read in light of the question professor alves, when you were a state judge it was your responsibility to interpret the constitution and provisions it has that are analogous to state constitutions but the constitution in light of and in respect to history and traditions and so forth what room you find to look abroad whether to new jersey or federal system or canada and elsewhere and whether you could give an example of a case in which the court of appeals found it instructive in interpreting the new york constitutional provision or statute to look abroad in a responsible fashion.

>> i have to go back and look at the case is to give a particular site. i think canada after all borders the united states and i think we did look to canada in you mentioned the same-sex marriage decision. i was very surprised the other day when i began thinking about tonight's program and began looking through the court of appeals cases to find page after page of cases i'm happy to share it with you where we did look to the laws of other nations and very often use light of the constitution and we have been talking about so many other instances of statutory law and common law but yes constitutional law, too where indeed our court has cited laws of other nations. it's not so strange to do that. and again, not that we began with the far reaches of the nation's.

we begin with a good solid foundation of president start with our own precedents, reach out sometimes to new jersey or other states and indeed sometimes look to other nations as well. >> if i may follow up on that. it seems to me this issue we are talking about is largely as you suggested u.s. federal issue because and i wonder if you agree state courts not only decide what the constitution say but also how to go about finding out what the constitution say and new york is on the east coast and has it of international trade and new york might decide that consulting opinions of other countries is useful inappropriate whereas that might not be the case in

idaho. >> i haven't researched the law of idaho. >> [inaudible] -- state constitutions of the british statute saying in empirical word processor is a similar provision there would be no difference on the high court to the state court interpretation in constitution of the state constitution that would be a matter of statutory interpretation and that reflects the different history. i just mention them unconstitutional interpretation because we often have recourse to the constitutional history and approaches one example is an area of the federal jurisdiction your constitution risks federal to distinction in places of controversies using the word matter but because of the

similarities, the notion that it is a controversy or dispute we, like you have rejected jurisdiction to intervene to give advisory opinions and we, like you developed the jurisdiction you call a supplemental jurisdiction and the development of that jurisdiction, jurisprudence and austral it was very much informed by and inspired by but that this institutions were inspired by yours. >> i would like to raise a couple questions we haven't discussed. >> three little time -- >> we are talking about the quality of other courts, other countries but we are not talking about the quality of the other judges in the constraints they might be under which is mainly judicial independence for example and they're -- therefore those countries might not and in terms of other countries, judge

que would you? >> i place very high on opinion and does of course mr. norman green essentials to the conclusion we've be careful and cautious and not in discriminant in the reference to the law of any other states and nations that we understand the judge's role as well so i completely agree we need to know about the courts about the traditions so as not to bring-into the domestic law the state or nation >> the interaction with judges in the european community because there are so many additional jurisdictions that have come in and they have to be in the position to respect each other's judgments as i understand systematic exchange

program for the judges get to know each other and have a feeling for the kind of people making decisions which another country might be asked to have regard to. >> what is the purpose of that? it's not just to promote foreign travel is it? >> i don't think so. there's a problem of the four in trouble here as i understand the supreme court is not funded. >> we have come to the end of our times please help us think our panelists. [applause]

homeland security secretary

janet napolitano announced the administration's nominee to head the transportation security administration. robert harding formerly served as the director of operations at the defense intelligence agency. the presidents of original nominee withdrew his name following objections by senate republicans. secretary napolitano spoke for about five minutes. >> this is a critical leadership position for the supreme because security of the nation by nominating general harding for this important job the administration is calling on an individual with 35 years of experience as an army commander a senior military intelligence officer high-level manager intelligence officer and successful businessman and ceo in the security field. the general will meet all of these talents as he takes the helm of the vital agency. tsa mandate is a broad one. they are responsible only for u.s. aviation security but also

safeguarding our rail, bus, transit and trucking systems as well. general will be a tremendous asset in the efforts to bolster security and screening measures at the domestic airports. by deploying additional airport law enforcement officials come behaviour detection officers, and marshall's and explosives detection teams among other security measures and fixing the gaps in the international aviation system as well. on friday we announced the first airports that will receive advanced imaging technology purchased with american recovery and reinvestment act dollars. the state-of-the-art machines are in enhancing our capability to detect and disrupt threats of terrorism across the nation. we expect to deploy a total of 450 units by the end of 2010 and fy 2011 budget calls for 500 more. we have exhilarated the deployment of this enhanced

technology and strengthen our other early years of aviation security partially in response to the attempted terrorist attack on december 25th which served as a reminder of the tactics violent extremists will pursue to threaten our international aviation system to thwart the security measures put in place since 9/11 and kill innocent men, women and children. the international dimensions of this incident and international threat opposed by radical extremism require an international response as well. right now dhs is working on an international effort to build consensus on strengthening international alleviation security. since january i met with my european counterparts and my north, south and central american caribbean colleagues in mexico last week to discuss ways to bolster international security measures and standards. these meetings so far have produced very encouraging

results including joint declarations to strengthen the international civil aviation system between the united states and european union and to the united states and argentina, brazil, canada, dominican republic, mexico and panama. friday my japanese counterpart transport ministers and all i announced we will join our counterparts from the region in tokyo to continue building this international consensus. make no mistakes we are engaged in aggressive efforts to strengthen the international aviation system against terrorists constantly seeking ways to exploit gaps and thwart security measures and general harding is the kind of leader we need as we move forward in these efforts. his national security expertise and work in the international community and years of service in the united states army will be an invaluable added addition to the department's efforts to

bolster security and the safety systems. i might add as a retired journal he adds a senior rank of the department of homeland security. let me close by saying the tsa administrator is among the most important on filled post in the obama administration. the president and i both believe general harding has the experience and perspective to make a difference carrying out the mission of this agency. if there were ever a nominee who wanted expedited and detailed consideration in the senate this is it. we hope the commerce and homeland security committees will be able to work expeditiously to complete the hearing process so his nomination may move to the floor for confirmation. i applaud the president. this is a superb choice and i

look forward to the confirmation and having bald on board -- bob on board. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> there will be questions later. deportations on families and communities. this one hour event is hosted by the coalition called the fair immigration reform movement. schenectady i join my colleagues from immigrant and civil rights organizations across the country to denounce the cruel and inhumane immigration enforcement practices that are tearing our communities and families apart. these are the seem enforcement

practices we marched against during the bush administration. these are the same enforcement practices we now are forced to denounce and marched against under the obama administration. many of us celebrate the historic election of barack obama and believed his election would bring justice to immigrants and their families. we believed then candidate for president barack obama when he promised to fix our broken immigration system. he said we would do this in the first year in office. he said he would stop the rates and enforcement practices the deviated from our american values of inclusiveness, justice and equality. yet the first year of the obama admin administration customs enforcement has deported 387,000

people. you can see the increase in this chart. this is a record high number of deportations and increase of close to 50% from fiscal year 2008. this is an average of 1,000 deportation's per day every day detention and removal operations holds an average of 32,000 people in detention centers across this country. immigration audits have tripled resulting in the disruption of whole industries and immigrant and native born leaders. finally, this administration has continued agreement with local law enforcement agencies that are clearly violating the civil and human rights of entire communities. millions of citizens and new americans voted for change and what they got as far as immigration issues are concerned are just more, much more of the same. we have waited over year without

legislative progress on comprehensive immigration reform still no relief for millions across the country. so mr. president and congress, we are bringing our demand to your backyard on march 21st and our march for america change takes courage mobilization. our expectation is that by march 21st, president barack obama, you exercise your leadership by helping move forward a blueprint for bipartisan immigration reform bill and timeline for getting the market in the senate judiciary committee. in the meantime, we demand immediate stop to all deportations because each one of these deportations come each of these numbers equals a life destroyed in a family devastated

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] ..

>> she came to the u.s. for a better future. one day i scheme pounding on my door looking for my mother. i felt scared. at the moment she was not home. they tried to interrogate me and my stepdad who was president. they give up and left. they arrived at 6:00 a.m. and left as 6:40 a.m.. 1/2 to get ready to go to school. on my way to school was wondering if i was ever going to see my mother again.

during my first period class , , during my first period class that same day i broke down in tears. the next day when i was returning from school and noticed i was being followed. i noticed on the corner of my block was a car with the i.c.e. officer and the other side was a red range rover had driven by a very slowly prevent a noticed somebody opened the house tour. was telling my stepdad i was being followed. we approached the window and saw i.c.e. approaching the property. they asked us two-step outside then i saw him handcuffed. they took him downtown detention center and asked

him more questions. he was detained in the whole day. without him and my mom i was alone in being taken care of with by friends and family. i could not be in an environment where i was being followed. i could not be without my mother. children by age should not live a life like i did. i could not do stuffer growth my friends without being followed. kids my age are fending for their future. put yourself in this situation that i had to go through. it is not easy. november 2008 when the situation happened, barack obama became president. my family had hopes they he would stop family separation. that he would do something

broke show then you are against family separation and a true president that keeps his word. you are our hope. the hope that you are going to make a change. think you. [applause] >> and despite our many contributions this happens. our next big year is executive director of one america of washington state. >> thank you for emigrants workers of hope in the backbone of america's economy baja harvesting crops and working in canneries. immigrants have always done the hard work asked of them and we always will. but today we are here to say

we're tired of a broken immigration system that forces workers to live in the shadows just because the elected leaders are not of the courage to fix the system thus serves no one except the hay mongers that seek to divide america africa we're tired of the bureaucracy that keeps families apart for decades and tired of made promises to than hold their cry and children like beatriz vazquez as they watch their parents deported broker we know all about the recession of this country because immigrants and others of color are the first to lose their jobs and real son of the immigration reform will be an economic boost to the country. center of the immigration process says facet of bill would put $1.5 trillion into our economy over the next decade. the cato institute said

emigrants raise the standard of living american citizens. last week in bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve board listed immigration reform as one of the issues that congress must take up to improve the nation's economy. today as we struggle out of recession, we know we have an economic recovery package right here with immigration reform. yet we are spending millions and billions on enforcement to add insult to injury by supporting the very workers that hold up this economy. this administration seems proud to out in force the bush administration departing on average 1,000 immigrants a per day. 1,000 mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. 1,000 human beings doing the work every economy needs. 1,000 immigrants who make

life better. not only for themselves and their families but all for all of us who live in america. we have watched the raids tear apart to our economy is. and in my home state brewster washington on christmas eve, one-quarter of the town of brewster was laid off due to an eye nine audit of one of the zero largest orchards in america. the town and businesses are still reeling in the fruit is still watching in the fields. this is not sound economic or moral policy. it is not leadership for change we can be the been. we expect more and expect the president to order his of ministration to stop the deportation and demonstrate leadership in passing immigration reform and issues that have been shown time and again to be a bipartisan issue is essential for our future and america.

immigrant workers had the audacity to hope when the candidate became president. it is time to deliver. our patients has run out. think you. [applause] >> we have a national executive director from the of the of united latin american decisions. the oldest hispanic civil-rights organization in the united states. >> july 2008 candidate barack obama attended the delegation and told us that immigrants are working hard contributing to this economy deserved a break and said he was elected president he would pass comprehensive immigration route reform and the first year of his presidency but not fast forward 21 months many of the delegates that were there believed him and thought if obama became president that we would have

was a comprehension reform but nobody believed in their wildest dreams that he would have a record like this where he surpasses the bush and administration with the deportation. it is unconscionable to have over 387,000 people deported in the first year of the obama presidency and our community is angry and our members feel betrayed. it is not just deportations. in addition to the raids, president obama said woodstock would continue. over 2,000 immigrants have been detained in rates in the first year of his administration and two weeks ago homeland security completed a three day sweep in texas arresting 284 immigrants and 119 were from the dallas-fort worth area and 80 from san antonio this is part of the new step up of wave of arrests the

administration plans. this is happening at the same time u.s. census bureau is sending out a census forms across the united states. unlike previous administrations in 1990 and 2000 which backed off during this time point* this administration appears to double down of a time when the community could be scared away from filling out the census. that is a shame because we see immigration enforcement during this timeframe can contribute to a huge undercounts in the latino community then come a lack of resources being delivered to the hispanic community is across the country. we are very concerned. as beatriz vazquez told us the collateral wake is far too often overlooked in this debate especially considering that children that bear the brunt of such policies. there are roughly 5.5 million children living in

the u.s. with one of authorized bereday and about three-quarters are u.s.-born citizen since. department of romance security estimates more than 100,000 immigrant parents of children have been deported. can you imagine over 100,000 stories just like beatriz vazquez happening. it is a shame. we're also hurting ourselves. the cost of mass deportation to our economy is staggering purchase of the center for american progress also estimates that it would reduce the gdp by two boys $6 trillion over 10 years. that is none even including the cost of deportation. this economic impact of the deportation with the two widespread job losses throughout the united states. there is a lot of evidence the stepped-up enforcement of the bush years and now the above years helped to trigger the housing bust

that has now led to the economic recession, the worst since the great depression. we're hurting your souls by being immoral and attacking hardworking immigrants of the united states. we have a simple message to stop deportations impasse immigration reform. obama, you promised a remembers and community. please look. thank you. [applause] >> in our search for leadership from washington d.c. we finders those not finding it so we go back to our community to seek the leadership there to speak of some of the actions taking place and when to introduce new today represents the mexican-american for immigration reform. >> guy the fish chicago for the last 20 years. and i remember 2008 my first

election i participate in november the latinos are excited about the charismatic candidate barack obama. they told us in america no mother can be separated from a child. what happened later what we're thinking is the deportation. but look what happened. around 1,000 people, 1,000 faces every day. the latinos one dissolutions but we tell the president he can come with us. we want a solution out. we would keep the voting in a single election but more

important, we have memories and we will remember. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] at. [applause] >> the next speaker is the executive director of the career and resource center of los angeles. >> hello. we are here for one reason. on march 21st come with

thousands of immigrants who were born in different countries and speak different languages and have a different culture are being marching for one reason. the reason is very simple but powerful. we care about this country. we care about america. to gather me blind to live in america were young people have a full access to education so they can be ed teacher, a social worker, they can contribute four in their community. together we want to live in america that hard-working people have respect and family members stay together so they can be productive for the country.

but sadly it is not happening in america. people are suffering. just because millions of people can go to school living in fear every day. this is america. that they are living. in 2008 many committee members come in this nation vote for change and we vote for people who can and people's suffering. we have been waiting, waiting, waiting. but this time our congress member are in a deep sleep. so now he said we can't take it anymore. wake up. do something. we cannot take this anymore. on march 21st. all people from all across

the nation will come to l.a., our committee members we raised about $50,000. they will be coming to washington d.c.. young people will read into a van and drive more than 2,000 miles not only los angeles, florida, chicago, a ll over the nation coming to dc four america. we care about this country. we need a real answer obama's. and congress members. thank you. [applause] >> fedex speaker is a nitza segui albino from the latin american and caribbean committee. >> good morning. my name is nitza segui albino that if a director of

the immigration director and also of member of the committee of the alliance of the communities. we have a network of over 80 independent organizations located in 15 states throughout the united states. we're looking for policies that address the root causes to improve the quality of life of our communities in the united states of origin. >> we are here to denounce the deportation by immigration and the informant agency i spread out and to call on president obama for his assistance to fix a broken immigration policy that seems to be immoral. one that breaks families apart and also immigrants

particular those of latin american art a threat to the nation is just a moral. is dehumanizing and opens the door for rate wing attacks in the communities there branding as a legal small-stock. by campaigning president obama's spoke about it the valuable contributions of today's immigrants in have mistaken it was to blame immigrants for the nation's ills because we know that president obama understands that the immigration system is broken. but instead of attacking hard-working immigrants he focuses on fixing a broken and wasteful immigration system and solving the problems that afflict the majority of people in our society.

lack of unemployment societies and a growing crisis and decent and affordable access to health care and that behavior by banks and financial institutions. nalac will continue to work for humane policy that true the reflects the best conditions of america and who we are as a country of immigrants as row as the principles of justice for all enshrined in the founding principles of our nation. mr. obama's, we are the people. stop deportation. we want a sustainable immigration policy now part of thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker to speak on how we will hold our leadership accountable, how we will march and continue to fight is the board member

of the new york immigration coalition. >> good afternoon prime of board member of a good new york immigration coalition the umbrella organization throughout the state of new york law i am here to call on president obama to stop pushing immigration a side. we needed for the security and for the nation's prosperity we needed to keep our families together. isn't that what this country is all about? coming from york have to say our senator chuck schumer has taken the lead to push immigration reform and the senate and you want to thank him for his efforts but keep in mind that alone has not stop the pain and suffering in our communities. we understand later today senator schumer and president obama and senator graham will meet above immigration our message is clear and simple do not matter that meeting unless

you can commit to immediate steps to end a deportation and a concrete plan or timeline acting for our legislation reform this year. fate emerges out these concrete steps how can we ever believe their commitment to immigration reform? president obama to come as a young american i voted for you because i voted for change but we have seen them more of the same more deportation, more raids and war broken families. show us your leadership by breaking comprehensive reform and making it a reality. i stand here from new york but on march 21st thousands of new yorkers will descend on the capital to send the same message as to date of comprehension immigration reform. this year. not next year. now. thank you. [applause] >> the final speaker is the executive director of

the -- . >> i come from chicago also from the church where -- was an resistance for deportation for over one year and in washington d.c. we were back very shortly. we are here today to tell president obama nancy pelosi and harry reid and chuck schumer and our senator dick durbin that they need to have more courage and the need to be like our congressmen because you have only 13-- left to keep your promise to the latino community remember if it was not for them you would not have one of those blue states that were historic the reds states. if you do not do what we promise to do we will leave

you where we found do before we go to do into office because amigos keep promises. you did not act like our friends. you have not only broke dinner promises to move the immigration reform and you have made this situation worse. deporting more people, separating were families come a break came more of her children's hearts than did the republicans in their final aggressive year. you have the power. you must use it or you will lose it. we will not live peacefully in a nation that is at war with our community and family is. don't mistake our faith weakness. remember would jesus said provide too not come to bring peace but a sword. what god has put together no man, no government should tear apart.

we should put on the armor of the lord and come to washington. it is showdown time. we're united more than ever before and we will mobilize more than ever before. you know, how we are when we mobilize because we have the largest mobilizations in the history of this country. 200 buses will leave chicago preparing now to join in the march 4 america here in washington d.c. on march 21st. the ground is already shaking and i can already hear the footsteps to the capital. justice delayed is justice denied. we will be in washington with all of our families, all of our churches, all of a young men and women and children so we pray god sends you there to be desperate go with the

bill already introduced but not do blueprint, but a bill already introduced moving through the house and the senate. stop the raids and a deportation and the separation of families. [speaking in native tongue] [applause] >> we are coming to washington from each of the coast and we will be here and be in the tens of thousands. want our voice to be heard and demands to be this into the most important maybe want results. this concludes our presentation portion of the press conference but we are no open for questions from the press. i ask the speakers come forward and u.s. members of the press address the

speaker to answer the question if that is the case. >> it is addressed to you. was pacificare realistic window of opportunity dc4 congress? nothing has happened so far we will see after the meeting later this afternoon but are you concerned that window is closing and what would be a realistic framework? >> we're very clear the window is closing and that is why we will seek to open it wide open because we need to make sure our representatives actually do their jobs this year. there is an opportunity too actually put the issue of immigration reform on the calendar to approach on the issue. can happen if there is political will. political will, communities across the country with

their voices him pressure elected officials to do their job. thank you. >> [speaking in native tongue] because people are afraid? >> let me be clear we're adamantly opposed to a boycott of the senses prepare represents $10,000 for every person it completes the form. that is just talking about the financial benefits to the communities we would be insane to boycott the senses to employ our communities at risk with the financial dollars. in addition it will help democratic committees to pick up needed seats in the u.s. congress we're expecting to pick up two seats in texas and several in california and throughout

united states but if we're not counted we can nightingale genco hold redistributing process. there is no boycott and we do not support such a thing but on the river and we have vast the president to stop the deportation, raids, enforcem ent activity during this critical time frame for both republican and democratic predecessors have honored that request but this president denies that and we think it is a huge mistake. we do not understand his rationale for continuing this one 1/3 to without pause with our security but we have not received that answer that we want. we hope he still comes to the realization he should call off i.c.e. and homeland security while the critical processes taking place. >> i guess i address this to those of you in washington

but those of you that understand the politics of everything. there is a high popularity rates for obama. there is some legislation that has been pastor marked on with the health care reform bill that could greatly benefit totino's and the u.s.. the latino vote is not expected to be out in large numbers during the midterm like any of their approach it will probably be lower. and there are realities about the party that you are criticizing and some of the things they stand for that might benefit the hispanic community. are you asking people or you said if there is no reelection come there is no immigration reform. who do you think the people will vote for?

will they just a home? does that benefit you to make this criticism when there are some political realities out there that democrats are facing some in the borderline districts that may not get reelected again simply because they push through health care reform. >> first of all, the democratic leadership needs to understand that when you talk to latinos are any of the american people and make a promise that you should keep your word pro there is always a consequence were the were a child and your mother told you to do something and you said yes and did not it is a consequence it is the same record is okay to criticize the president and the democratic leadership when they failed to do when faced with a seven they would do. if you do not apply the consequence there will be no

change. historical you have to prove to them they have to pay a consequence in order to change. look at it as disciplining our children. >> of like to add i expect our e leaders and elected representatives to come to washington d.c. to get the job done. we hit the pavement and encourage the community to come down to and votes and every single person the boats expects when they come to washington they're not just bickering with each other but actually understanding they have the power to change people's lives and that is our expectation we are in search of the leadership. if it is not elected that we will find that leadership and put them into office. another question? >> negative with "the washington post" for could you think this attack today

represents a change in your strategy? have remember just after obama took office talking to some of you and the feeling seemed to me we understand he has a lot on the agenda we want some immigration change this year but we'll understand it may not be the first thing or take more than a year but there was the sense that he had other priorities and your understanding but today that it strikes me as markedly different would you characterize we were talking about today as a change? >> the answer is yes and i will pass it over. >> absolutely we have been patient. we all understood there were many things on the table but the reality is immigration reform is about jobs and getting the country on the right track. please see one of the best

economic recovery package is being ignored because of lack of leadership and courage so i think we understand how intertwined the immigration system is with everything else the economy we face and everything else. we're not ready to way too anymore it doesn't make economic sense or moral sense. we're out of time coming out of patience and ready to push forward all of the power we have collectively and our states across the country to make sure we're really are going to get the change promised to us. >> biosite want to add to that that despite our understanding of some things that needed to get done, we agreed that he could do certain things and stopping deportation was a mark of the community but instead this is happening.

if it does not stop and we don't say it now it will continue growing and it will be laid. sometimes the democratic party thinks they have it but they don't. you don't. if you do the right thing you will have less but if you don't you will not have the spirit of that is the bottom line. we are tired. it is time for action. >> i am with the "new york times." of the question is for dae joong yoon but it illegal undocumented immigrants immigrants, recently i met to with -- s.a. said 340,000

immigrants undocumented immigrants do have any of the nation about how many people have been deported last year? 387 o.r. 7490 people? which is it? and how many people? is. >> i want to save as much as the latino issue or asian issue over it is the people's issue. we are members of community your neighbors your church members and children are crying looking for their mothers. the young people came to school. is this about race or people's issues? talk about economic power and boosting america's economy because they get a

job and a license a buy a car and buy auto insurance and the automobile factory they are hard workers. they buy a house. it is the fastest way to get our communities back on track. one out of five has the undocumented immigrants we have about 80,000 pacific islanders that are caught in the backlog people waiting and waiting to be reunited with their loved ones and families frequent shopper that 1.5 million are undocumented. it is a people's issue. who will talk about that? america. >> i am from "the nation" magazine. i am wondering if you could talk more about what you

think this comprehensive reform when you talk about i.c.e. that abuses its power and the tensions that are hidden and abusing human rights on a consistent basis you're using the term comprehensive immigration reform but what is the bare minimum you will accept and what is the real ask? >> right now first and foremost a mere one teeing debt action in that release for the families comes by of legalizing the undocumented migrants in this country and many who are children. that means uniting families in reducing the backlog to make sure families can be together and workers' rights for immigrants workers. so we actually have good wages and good jobs that we can in america that we can feel proud of and talking

about the process and fair treatment and every aspect of life. that doesn't rely comprehensive reform that is why revoked and we will not give up until that happens. [inaudible] the second part of my question is. [speaking in native tongue] >>

[speaking in native tongue] >> in chicago resell tickets for $100 of freedom of the money to finance the $5,000 full bus this is the people's campaign. we are financing this campaign. there is not much resources. each spot = 5,000 and two buses that is 1 million peat-- $1 million to bring

10,000 people. >> they're out there singing and dancing from a destroyed lives in america of. [inaudible] [speaking in native tongue] >> we're doing a lot of grassroots action across the country to get to washington d.c. because we will be here. [speaking in native tongue]

we're fighting for comprehensive immigration reform because what we were promised was comprehensive immigration reform you have an agricultural jobs that will help farmworkers and comprehensive immigration reforms speaks seeks too not leave people behind it helps the urban areas the same way in the rural areas and that is what we're fighting force of communities are treated equally.

[speaking in native tongue] >> this may be too technical and we can talk afterwards but what is the sense of the breakdown of the increase of deportations? id and understood it was i.c.e. as a board -- compared to border patrol or voluntary departure. let you know, what is the cause of such a large numerical increase? and in particular, as you know, , the administration did make an announcement that they were ending the enforcement we had seen in the last year of the bush and administration but it did the scene that was occurring perhaps there is other enforcement going on i am trying to understand how much of that is expansion of secured communities and how

much of it is the enforcement that raised concerns in your community? >> the answer is every year the last 10 years we have increased the number of personnel committed to border and interior enforcement and as a result the increase has been pretty dramatic of the number of people apprehended each year this is people who were reported by i.c.e. and a dramatic increase from the bush administration we believe because the obama administration intentionally set out to show that he was tougher than bush and obviously they have been able to accomplish a significant increase in the people deported. he did say he would stop some of the workplace raids but those are continuing and in addition they have been using other tactics to put terror into the communities by saying they're going

after folks that said their criminal aliens but this could be those on the deportation those of with the administrative folks were nothing but hardworking immigrants to contribute to this country and are brought up in the increased enforcement. we are concerned about what the administration has done and they have argued or tried to create space by doing this but the fact is that the space has been created. we have the best of come through. but the promise of comprehensive immigration reform supposed to accompany this never happened. they are way behind the times the window is closing quickly. there is not a lot of indication at this point* that the promise that they made that yes, there would be more enforcement of about the same time passing comprehend should

should-- comprehensive immigration reform because of that the anger has come back and people are very frustrated and upset and they did not expect this from this administration. >> yes? >> following the questions of politics in november, if latino voters get angry or disappointed with democrats and don't turnout in a tight race are too worried you will achieve that republicans? >> we are one teeing elected representatives to do their job to push on the issues we care about. the thing about it is if they're not getting reelected it is because they're not get anything done. people will not go to the polls with your black or white or latino or asian we will not vote for people who knew no are in competent in their job.

so right now we're asking them to do their job and a duet well and represent your communities across this country. that is what we want. the immigrant community as americans come the people who understand the values of democracy who many times came in from different countries understand democracy is only real live people hold the representatives accountable per car will pass the question to lisa to talk about what they are doing stack we have a similar situation in new york city in congressional district 13 we could help elect a democratic congressman michael mcmahon at from staten island and southwest brooklyn. we have been talking to him about comprehensive immigration reform he also voted against health care reform. we can speak to republicans in a way that makes sense to

them. we are well educated communities all over the country we care about to news and talk republicans who that it will benefit them. they are unbelievably are belatedly there are republicans who were looking at comprehensive immigration reform that makes sense for them. just we could you do not support one democrat does not mean you could not support to another. we are not just going to vote democrat or party but issue. that is a mistake from the past were repo party. and we in the york have a group of people from all over the states that have been lobbying and as you can see our senator chuck schumer has been an advocate on immigration reform and our senator is also very prophetic and a supporter of the dream act and the

efforts are not going unnoticed they just need to support gutierrez and kirsten gillibrand so i feel the efforts are being heard. >> i spoke to an official of the lighthouse this morning about the numbers and that is the one thing they said is that you have to consider some of those numbers for part of the fy 2009 when bush was in power and obama just became in january that some of the numbers reflect the outgoing business administration. also the point* you're not being satisfied with what they have done so far in terms order enforcement and law enforcement measures inside the u.s.. the argument is that it

satisfies the conservatives pushing for tougher enforcement to get them to come to that table and find a common ground in thin talk about the undocumented politician. is that a compromise? you make a concession in terms of border enforcement in return for comprehensive immigration reform. but there is the return that is the problem that has been no return on this enforcement but more enforcement. it is either the numbers that happened before january than what happens to the members after january when you were in charge? you did not stop it but for many people you made it worse. and the stories come in every day.

they can do it. there is no excuse. there is no excuse. the numbers should not have risen over the top like they did. >> i want to caution the administration to plead reform with poker chips so we can negotiate and let's give a pathway to legalization with civil liberties and strengthen border control. as juicy with tsa guidelines many communities will help the undocumented committee but affecting like the muslim communities and others were being affected by border controls, airport security that is also part of the larger cir bill. comprehensive immigration reform will not settle for less than i caution our politicians and elected officials to play it like a poker chip he will help some and hurt others otherwise i will keep working until the last day that we get

everything we went and comprehensive immigration reform. >> it is disingenuous for the administration to argue that this is not about their actions. don't think if you ask them they would want to say they did not have their eye on the ball the first couple months they were in office. think they would want to project they are and it ministration in control of all of the actions that happened since they took office. but you could that have numbers with this with just a few months of carryover from the bush and administration. we have seen the paper raids, work force and force a rates, the stock trades, nine raids, enforcement and our state is a northwest border state we have law enforcement in the border communities tell us this increase in enforcement is hurting their ability to protect communities and enforce the laws in our communities as local law enforcement.

the sheriff association of a letter to the president saying we need to change the sample enforcement dollars in protecting committees to ensure that the immigrant communities are able to work with law enforcement and actually provide them with all of the information they need to affect real crimes. >> are you holding secretary napolitano accountable she is the face to have as their point* her cent on cir because she is directing the work and meetings to help shape of the bill. how much confidence you have in her as the head? >> we are expecting results on a comprehensive immigration reform whether janet napolitano or anybody else. this is the person in charge and has been charged with making it happen.

>> secretary napolitano reports due president obama the way i am understand it. president obama as leader in chief for commander in chief to tell secretary napolitano that these measures are not acceptable for his administration. that is what we are calling on. yes, we don't like what secretary napolitano has done africa we have told her that in meetings she and others have held across the country and throughout the states and it is the president to is the commander in chief and the leader of this administration and he needs to tell her that and make the changes happen. >> this concludes our press conference i thank you for joining us today. have a wonderful day. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon welcome to the national press club. i am a reporter from bloomberg news and president. we're the leading professional organization for a journalist and committed to our future programming and fostering a free press worldwide. we also purchased one power when it% of our energy needs. for more information please

visit our website press.org to look at our programs to two/letter a. like to think the events. like to welcome the c-span and public radio audience. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many questions as time permits. i would now like to introduce the head table guess. from your right, the deputy administrator for the epa. new-line of automotive news. diana the washington correspondent for the center no. . .