floor. >> today at the british house of commons prime minister david cameron said the u.k. will withdraw 500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012. that is next on c-span2. ..

500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012, reducing troop levels to 9,000. he also took questions on counterterrorism efforts with pakistan. currently the u.k. is the second-largest of the foreign military force in afghanistan. from london, this is just under an hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission i would like to make a statement on afghanistan. formerly i said this government has sought to take a more hard hit security based approach to the mission.vernment as i've said, we are not there to build a perfect democracy,

still a model society.re yes, we will help with the detablishment of demographicild institutions and yes, we can improve infrastructure, develop education, encourage democrac development, but we are in afghanistan. we can improve infrastructure, develop education and encourage development the we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to shore our own national security by helping the afghans take control of theirs. that means building up security forces to drive down british combat forces where the afghans themselves able to prevent al qaeda from returning and posing a threat to us and our allies around the world. this is poignant today on a plot executed by al qaeda and extremists with the same perverted ideology as the september 11th attacks. 375 british service men and

women have died fighting in afghanistan to strengthen that country and keep britain and britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. thousands more including many civilians have risked their lives and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. they were called to an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific you and mandate working at the invitation of a democratically elected government. though there have been many difficult times we should be clear about what has been achieved. in 2009 my predecessor, the prime minister told this house that some three quarters of this serious terrorist plots against britain linked afghanistan and pakistan. we must always be on guard. i am advised this figure is significantly reduced. international forces have been bearing down on al qaeda and the taliban in pakistan and

afghanistan. osama bin laden has been killed and al qaeda is significantly weakened. in afghanistan british and international forces have driven al qaeda from its bases and while it is too early to tell for certain initial evidence suggests we halted the momentum of the taliban insurgency in its heartland. mr. speaker, we are entering a new phase in which the afghan forces will do more of the fighting and patrolling and our forces training and mentoring. as president obama said last month the mission is changing from, that to support. when we arrived there was no one to hand over to. no proper army or police. in many places across the country the afghan security forces now stand ready to begin the process of taking over security responsibility. success in afghanistan requires a number of critical steps. the first is making sure the afghan security forces are able to secure their own territory.

there have been well known problems especially with the afghan police but there has been real progress in the last two years. general david petraeus went out of his way to praise afghan forces in a number of complex and dangerous operations. the afghan forces are growing rapidly. now ahead of schedule to meet the current target of 171,600 afghan army and 134,000 afghan police by the end of october this year. they are deploying in formed units and carrying out their operations. there have been some real successes. afghan national security forces prevented insurgents from reaching their targets and eight days ago when a major hotel was attacked the afghan forces dealt with the situation. this was a sophisticated attack. the afghan forces dealt with it professionally only calling in assistance from a nato helicopter deal with the insurgents on the roof. the afghan forces acquitted

themselves extremely well and is growing strength and capability will allow us to hand control of security to afghan forces and draw down -- mr. speaker we remain committed to the objective shared by president hamid karzai that the afghans should assume lead reform stability across the country as a whole by the end of 2015. last month president obama announced that the u.s. would withdraw 10,000 forces from afghanistan by the end of this year and will complete the removal of the u.s. surge by the end of the summer next year. at the time of the u.s. surge the u.k. increased its core force by an extra 500. for our part i have already said we will withdraw 426 uk military personnel by february of 2012 and today i imagine the u.k. will reduce its force levels by a further 500 from 9,500 to 9,000 by the end of 2012. this decision has been agreed by

the national security council on the advice of our military commanders. these reductions reflect the progress being made in building up the a and s f. is worth noting for every u.s. soldier who leaves that the surge is removed to afghans -- two afghans will take their place. this is the start of a process that will ensure by the end of 2014 there will not be anything like a number of british troops as there are now and they will not be serving in a combat role. this is the commitment i have made and that we will stick to. having taken such a huge share of the burden and performed magnificent record decade the country needs to know there's an end point. the level of our current commitment and our combat operations. this decision is not only right for britain but for afghanistan too. it has given the afghans a clear deadline against which to plan and inject a sense of urgency. mr. speaker, there's a clear an

end point to our combat role, after 2014 the u.k. will continue to have a major strategic relationship with afghanistan. a development relationship, diplomatic relationship and trained relationship. above all a vital measure of security interests in preventing afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terror. although our forces will no longer be present in a combat role we will have a continuing military relationship. we will train the afghan security forces and in afghanistan, in new officer training academy. this was something president hamid karzai asked me for and i am proud that britain is able to deliver. we intend to lead the academy from 2013 in addition to maintaining our current role in the office of candidate school which is due to merge with the academy in 2017. we will continue our efforts to help afghanistan build a viable state but our support cannot be on condition. in my meeting with president hamid karzai i made clear the

responsibility of the government to ensure british taxpayers' money is spent well and spend wisely. i emphasized to president hamid karzai held important it is that he certainly bridge the problems around the bank and the need for a new imf program. i asked him to support the new democratic process. and i made it clear that while o so on the basis of afghanistan must help its of too. almost all insurgencies have ended with a combination of military pressure and political settlement. there is no reason afghanistan should prove any different. as we strengthen the afghan government and security forces we will also back president hamid karzai's efforts to work towards an afghan led political entitlement. the death of bin laden presents the taliban with a moment of choice. al qaeda are weakened. their leader is dead. last month the u n adopted two separate sanctions regimes

creating a clear distinction to separate taliban from al qaeda. local peace councils have been established in almost all afghanistan's provinces allow 1800 people from 17 provinces to be enrolled for reintegration. we should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the taliban that now is the time to break al qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process. in this task we need pakistan's assistance. as i discussed last week as much in pakistan's interest as britain or afghanistan. the taliban pose a more wolf read to the states of pakistan as well. mr. speaker there is no reason afghanistan should be destined to remain a broken country. it has fertile agricultural land and stands at the crossroads of asia's training program. it has succeeded in the past when not wracked by conflict. afghanistan has many challenges

ahead. there are security issues and lack of government capacity but ten years ago afghanistan was in the grip of a regime that ban young girls from school, hank people in football stadiums for minor misdemeanors, banished radios and any form of entertainment and incubating the terrorists that struck on 9/11 and elsewhere. afghanistan has come a long way. today afghanistan is no longer a haven for global terror. its economy is growing. it has a developing legal system and basic building blocks of what could be a successful democracy. in helmand province which we should remember with cantar was a stronghold of taliban and the insurgency there's a growing economy -- one of the areas to include in the first phase of transition, is a sign of the transformation we helped to

bring about. as we enter this new phase of transition i'm sure the house will want to join me in paying tribute to our for service men and women who have made such incredible sacrifices to defend our national security. we have been going about our daily lives, they have been fighting in the heat and the dust giving up the things we take for granted. that is the true character of the british army and why we are so proud of all our forces and the families who support them and we are so grateful for everything they do and i commend this statement to the house. >> mr. speaker, i join the prime minister paying tribute to our forces who served with such dedication and heroism in afghanistan. whatever differences separate us on other issues i commend the substance and tone of his statement today and the approach to the issue of afghanistan. mr. speaker, as we prepare to

remember the victims tomorrow, we are all reminded of the reason we are engaged in afghanistan, to secure our security at home. that is why we on this side of the house continued for our forces in afghanistan. we also continue to support the prime minister's contention to end the british combat role in afghanistan by the end of 2014. it is right that we made clear to the afghan government and its security forces that they need to step up and take responsibility for the future of the country. it is right that we make clear to the british people this is not a work with our efforts. this year and next we must maintain a combination of military pressure, accelerated buildup of afghan security forces and work on basic governance and justice. i support the prime minister's plan to maintain british troop levels above 9,000 the last two years, 4 deuce fighting season and the next. this will give our forces best chance of consolidating the

situation before the process of transition to afghan control accelerate in 2012/2013 when our forces come home in greater numbers. i first asked about the issue of our troops commitments can he assure the house that our reduction go-slow, particularly the americans this will not cause british forces to take on a disproportionate share of the burden and can he ensure control of the house the detailed plan for troop drawdown and i am sure he can give assurance. we will always be based on military advice on the ground. we also have troops who do a difficult job testing their circumstances. on the subject of military equipment can the prime minister also assure the house our armed forces will receive all the equipment they need in the months ahead including the 12 chinooks the prime minister promised of which the order has not been placed? mr. speaker, auld professionalism of our armed forces is given the best chance

of success. that will be realized as the prime minister said if we see political progress in afghanistan. just as important as a decision on troop numbers our military strategy is a political track. these are still talks about talks and much worse i am sure the prime minister would agree needs to be done between now and december and indeed after if we are to make the most of the opportunity we have. i have a specific question on that issue. building on the excellent work of the u. n. special representative will the prime minister press for the security council to appoint a senior figure possibly mr. dennis soar above for the muslim world to be empowered to mediate between afghan government and the taliban, those members of the taliban or spies. such a figure could secure the commitment of countries in the region to supporting a new political settlement reflecting their shared interests in

long-term stability in afghanistan. it must remain a red line for the taliban and others must commit to a peaceful political process the current constitution need not be set in stone. will he pressed the afghan eyepiece council to consider constitutional reform including allowing -- the afghan stage is one of the demands for the political -- political differences. these steps being taken now also by the time of the conference in december the ground has been prepared and real progress could be made. as we look to a stronger afghanistan we are also recognizing the governance and rule of law. more about the ongoing scandal over the kabul bank, does it mean this problem symbolizes the inability of the afghan government to distance itself from some of the practices which threaten to undermine the afghan

economy and international development? can he tell us more about what britain is playing to get britain to take the next step to tackle the crisis and allow the imf to resume proper support? finally let me turn to pakistan. we all accept the long-term stability in afghanistan depends on stability in pakistan. when i met president zadari. like amended the pakistan's security forces in tackling violent extreme as in the northwest of the country but as the prime ministers said the situation in pakistan continues to be serious. there's a danger that the death of osama bin laden which should be welcomed on all sides will not have that effect in pakistan. i asked him there for what steps he has taken for british support of counter-terrorism in pakistan at the heart of our relationship to the pakistan government. we all want to see british troops come home at the earliest

opportunity, not least all the families and friends of those who are currently serving in afghanistan. we also want to see the campaign concluded in a way that ensures their service and sacrifice has not been in vain and afghanistan and a wider region moves into a stable future rather than once again posing a serious threat to our security and other countries around the world. so i welcome today's statement and i thank the prime minister. i will work with him on afghanistan and continue to do so we all redouble our efforts on the military front and political front to give afghanistan the stability it needs. >> i am grateful for the right hon. gentleman's response to the statement and across party support over this issue. not only for the mission but indeed for how we are proposing to draw down and bring it to an end and he is right to say the combination of military pressure

and build up of the political process that can enable us to meet our objectives. he asked specific questions on troop commitment. we are withdrawing troops more slowly than the u.s. but of course the u.s. had a surge of 33,000 troops. that number is more like 70,000 so obviously it makes sense for our drawdown to be proportionately smaller but it is important for us to have the drawdown in the way i said. he asked quite rightly we must be careful as this drawdown takes place that we don't put a disproportionate burden on the remaining british troops and i am clear we must not be entering into a large new operational area. we should continue the excellent work we're doing in helmand province handing over to the afghans and seeing the transition -- it may be possible to transition parts of helmand province before the end of the process in a very effective way. on the issue of equipment one thing that struck me on my

recent visit i just returned from and visits over the last couple years is there is now a real sense among our troops that they have the equipment that they need. body armor is much improved. the quality of vehicles much improved. there is no use of land rovers outside bases any more. i think it is very positive what has taken place and some of that action was initiated under the past government and continued under this government funding operational requirements in afghanistan is working well. clearly we need to make sure we have helicopter capacity and the rest of it goes ahead. in terms of -- in terms of talks he mentioned the need for a new international figure. i feel that perhaps the time for that has actually passed. now what we need is an afghan lead process. there are much more effective discussions taking place between afghanistan and pakistan. a more positive attitude on both

sides and i think we should do what we can to keep every possible support. they talked about the high peaks tell. i met with former president r a rabarni who is doing good work in that process. we should be completely hung up on every element of the current afghan constitution but it is important to give a reassurance to the government and parliament and people of afghanistan that there's not a secret agenda to carve their country up. we want to see a strong and stable afghanistan with everyone play apart in its future. in terms of the kabul bank we have surrendered what what -- what went wrong and what happened and need to recapitalize the central bank so the financial system is supported. the uk is massively involved in this process and we are working for a positive outcome. we need it because otherwise funds can't flow into organizations in afghanistan in the way they need to. he is right to command the pakistani security forces for

what they have done in north west frontier and elsewhere. in terms of the british relationship with pakistan, what is important at a time when clearly they are under huge challenge obviously the talk about all kinds of terrorism relationships but to stress all the parts of our relationship and explain that we are there for pakistan for democratic and peaceful pakistan for the long term just as we ought to have a long-term relationship with afghanistan. both these countries fear and the evidence from the past that some in the west will walk away. we must convince we are long-term interests are to be with them. >> mr. nicholas homes. >> that join the prime minister in paying tribute to the magnificent performance of the men and women of all three services and all those who support them in afghanistan. a particularly commend the decision the prime minister has put forward to have a training school in afghanistan and to

provide the personnel to provide instructors and british army are brilliant at that and will do well. they i suggest he might consider whether or not resources might extend to the same thing to provide training for the civil service. >> my right hon. friend is right to -- i misspoke but referring to the british army. i should talk about all the british armed services. it is striking when you are there how many are a f and navy personnel are in afghanistan, not least the marines. i have a great pleasure being able to speak to the uk and also the u.s. marine corps, on independence day, struggle for -- he is right to mention -- it is the right proposal for british involvement in the future. clearly there is also a case for doing more on civil service training and more as well.

>> can i ask the prime minister to reconsider its rejection of the idea of a un mediator? his own arguments about the past record of the afghan government and its present activities show why an independent figure from the muslim world needs to be engaged with the afghan government as a party but also western nations and neighbors. secondly i wonder if he could pick up the idea of a council of reasonable surge did -- stability. he was right to mention pakistan. stability in afghanistan required engagement of all these, not as the pakistani and the dangers people and not just the presence of the taliban and the political system but the northern and other groups and a council of reasonable -- regional stability is essential to give support for a stable afghanistan that we all want to see. >> i listened carefully to what the right hon. gentleman says and he has experience in this and i agree with what he says that the neighbors of

afghanistan are fully involved. one point i would make is what i have seen is there is no shortage of ideas, new processes to wrap around it. the problem is lack of commitment. we need to see real commitment from the afghans to work with the pakistanis and roh commitment from the pakistanis to work with the afghans. hamid karzai has made reasonable points when he visited which is to say there must be the ability to allow a taliban to go to talk but those taliban who don't want to talk must be arrested and confronted by the pakistanis. we can wrap all the processes in the world around it. in the end what we should be about is encouraging real commitment to make the peace process work. >> may i endorse the point being made about the need for regional involvement and stability. the prime minister went to some length to explain what it was the united kingdom would do after the withdrawal of combat

forces. what confidence does he have that other countries, members of nato or the european union will be willing to contribute in a similar way? >> there is good evidence that there's a real commitment in nato. many nato partners say we joined together and should leave together and the growing understanding of what needs to be done in cases like this is to have an enduring relationship rather than just having a short-term relationship. the argument is well understood and if you look at the commitment other nato members have made to the training position in afghanistan it is a positive story. >> as someone who takes a somewhat different view of afghanistan can i make quite clear i pay tribute -- to the bravery of the british troops involved. will the prime minister continue to reject those who argue

against ending the british combat role within the next four years and as far as i am concerned i would like to see it done earlier and is there not a very strong feeling in this country that after ten years the british people want out? >> what the british people want is some certainty about the -- what it involves. my belief is because we have been in afghanistan since 2001 and have been in helmand province since 2006 it is reasonable to say we will be there until the end of 2014 and large number and in a combat role but after that -- that gives people some certainty but also puts some pressure on the afghans to make sure they have worked out how to take their responsibilities as well. the advice i receive from military commanders is this is doable, challenging the on track. >> i welcome what my right hon.

friend said about the modest withdrawal of troops next year and also particularly welcome with my right hon. friend from west sussex what he said about the training academy in afghanistan. is my right hon. friend able to say whether the military relationship going forward after 2015 will also accept beyond that academy to training to mentoring to logistics and other support? >> yes it will. if you look at the numbers, what we are talking about for the training is something like 120, supplemented by other country's personnel and the u.s. has agreed to put $38 million into this training academy. we ought to do more over and above that. national security council discussing how much we should be committing and how much we will be spending but we will be going over and above that for an important relationship to help them build and maintain their

capacity. >> mr. alistair darling. >> may i join the prime minister expressing his condolences to scott mcclaren who was killed in tragic circumstances earlier this week. he came from edinburgh and his loss of life is a reminder of the sacrifice being made by so many young people in this country, in afghanistan. when the prime minister talked about drawing down from levels next year i am right in saying that is reducing troop numbers to the level we have at the beginning of 2009. what i wasn't clear about is after 2014 are we talking about maintaining such a significant presence after that time? i appreciate the different role doing different things but i think the house would want to get some idea we are talking about maintaining such significant presence and also where other countries stand on that. >> the right hon. gentleman asks a totally inappropriate question.

what i was saying is we are going down to 9,000 by the end of 2012. we have to work out the right number for 2013 and into 2014. what i said after that is we won't be in afghanistan in anything like this a number in a combat role. not in a position to give a figure for the enduring commitment through 2015, and beyond in terms of the training role, involves the officer training academy and some other training work as well. we are not in a position to put a figure on that but it will be weighed down from the figures we are talking about today. >> the prime minister has reaffirmed the policy objective in afghanistan is to deny al qaeda a base in which it can attack the u.k. and other british interests. it is fair to assume he is continuing to receive intelligence that al qaeda remains a threat in afghanistan.

this is difficult but would you like to consider whatever way this information can be shared? >> obviously the whole process of sharing intelligence is a difficult issue and some difficult recent historical connotations. what i said in my statement is there was a time when the lion's share coming in terms of threatening people in the u.k. came from the afghanistan/pakistan region. the number has come down significantly since then. clearly al qaeda has been hammered in pakistan with a huge number of senior leaders. could they then have anything like the presence in afghanistan they had when hosted by the taliban in 2001? our aim should be not just to exclude afghanistan from a place where al qaeda can be but to make sure the afghans can go on insuring that without the support of foreign troops if you

like the enduring a that we have. >> mr. bailey. >> i expressed my admiration on the service of men and women of -- when i was in afghanistan -- three weeks ago. as our troops come home we will have a training mission and leave behind a strong and well-trained and well armed afghan national security force. at the current rate of progress, frank mentioned politics. i believe there's a real danger given the history of military dictatorship and authoritarian states in the region that afghanistan could go the same way. what is our government doing to prevent that medium term outcome? >> the hon. gentleman makes a good point which is the more mechanical task of training our afghan army and police is going very well. there were errors in the early days. they have been ironed out.

i was struck by what general david petraeus and general rodriguez said about the quality of the afghan army. as they like to call it, long pole in a tent, strong and sustainable and vigorous quality of afghan government and democracy. there was a standoff between the executive on the one hand and parliament on the other and we have to settle these issues. i don't think we will achieve perfection. this is a country without a longstanding democratic history. we have got to put in place basic democratic institutions and functioning government and the british effort is geared towards that task. >> thank you, mr. speaker. given that for many years our government negotiated with the provisional ira when still fighting there i suspect at some level we will be in negotiation with the taliban. would my right hon. friend the

prime minister agree with me that any negotiations with the taliban, one of the most important things we must put forward is al qaeda should never ever come a part of afghanistan if the taliban were ever to be formed a government or part of a government in that country. >> my hon. friend is right. first of all this must be an afghan lead process. this is about the afghans trying to bring together in their country all the elements that should form part of its future and clearly if the taliban separate themselves from al qaeda and are prepared to give up violence, the basic tenets of the afghan constitution, those are end conditions. if they can do that there's a process, potential for a political process that can speed the end of this conflict. we have to go ahead on the basis of building the afghan army by

continuing with tough operations, taking out taliban insurgents but there is opportunity for political integration process at the low level that can speed the end of the conflict and end up with a more stable -- >> mr. speaker, the prime minister referred to the recent attacks on the hotel in kabul. that is well inside several security rooms. is it not the fact that there are worrying indications that the taliban are implementing parts of afghanistan where they haven't been and how confident can we be that the afghan authorities are in a position to really have complete control of the internal security of afghanistan by the end of 2014? >> the hon. gentleman asks a good point. in terms of the government's security and afghan security forces which is improving all the time. the point i would make is rather

unfair press about the hotel because if you look at how rapidly the afghan security forces were able to clear that hotel of insurgents when there was a regrettable loss of life it was fast and quick and effective, they drove the insurgents onto the roof where they were taken out with the assistance of nato. we have seen attacks like the mumbai hotel and other things were suicide attacks go ahead and all i can say is in the case of afghanistan people who are pretty tough nuts like general david petraeus and general rodriguez were impressed by what the security forces did. we should be talking that up. >> mr. speaker, my right hon. friend -- all kinds of pressures to speed up afghanistan, that would be the wrong reason to withdraw from afghanistan. can i commend him for setting a timetable because that is the way to accelerate the process in kabul and make president hamid

karzai set up and engage in some of the talks that are already taking place and i agree with my right hon. friend is wrong to internationalize this process. it has to be done through tribal structures in afghanistan and fought by themselves and for themselves. is not something we can supervise from the un. >> i thank my hon. friend for his questioning. across the house -- has to the afghan led. we don't want to see a sort of bad tribal -- that would lead to future instability. clearly it has got to be a proper reconciliation process. what i am scene and a timetable has existed, is a positive engagement from afghanistan and pakistan in talking about their shared future and in the end we can push and encourage and work with but in the end those two countries have to make decisions

together about how to be more secure. >> welcome the fact that peace negotiations are seriously under way. and assurances that the rights of women will not be -- because those rights have been hard fought for and we don't want to see them in prison in their homes and children -- when you ask the president to include women in his negotiating team there are many women who are very fearful what will happen in afghanistan in the future and i think they deserve those assurances. >> the honorable lady makes a good point. i would stress that what is run by -- there are a prominent afghan women involved in that reconciliation process. nobody wantss to see a return to the days of taliban afghanistan. i think we have to accept if we want a speedy end to the

insurgency and stability for the long term in afghanistan than what president hamid karzai has referred to as is lost cousins who lost their way have to be brought back into the body of afghanistan and we found this fantastically difficult with irish republican terrorists but we now have sitting in government people who have previously committed to bombing people and the same process has to happen in afghanistan difficult though it is. >> john baron. >> on the importance of the talks of the taliban be in non conditional. just as an unconditional talks with the ira help bring peace in northern ireland. i suggest that the u.s. wish that al qaeda and the taliban to sever all ties should be part of the settlement rather than preconditions. >> where my hon. friend is right

is clearly what matters is the end of the process. if you can get into a political process in afghanistan, people who separated from al qaeda and have given up violence and accepted the tenets of the afghan constitution that is a success but what you can't change is the idea that somehow you let armed terrorists into government. you do have to have some red lines in your mind about what is possible and appropriate. otherwise would you end up with is not stability and not any form of a functioning state. >> caroline lucas. >> the prime minister will know with increasing concern about droned in afghanistan and elsewhere that they will strike civilians. yesterday it was confirmed that drones killed four afghan civilians and injured two others. since military officials are saying almost a third of the raf could be made up in the next 20 years will the prime minister review these?

>> i would say to the hon. lady it matters hugely that we avoid civilian casualties whether we are in operation of afghanistan or indeed in libya. but i don't think the answer is to turn our face away from the modern technology that is now possible to pinpoint people who are doing us harm. as to technology being used in afghanistan through drones and other aerial cameras hugely effective in actually driving back taliban insurgency and taking people who are doing us harm. >> prime minister, recently -- post deployment to afghanistan. much good has been achieved. i would use caution on the speed of british troops withdrawn in case all that good work comes to nothing. in particular if i draw his attention to what happened in the summer of 2008 when the four battalion of parachute regiment

joined forces to take a turbine down. three years later it has not been connected up. >> my friend make that good point. i don't want to ask to jeopardize the success that has been had and i would say from the many conversations i had with service personnel many of whom are going back to afghanistan for a third or fourth time that iran is extremely high, the sense we are achieving good things in afghanistan is there. we have to focus on what is effective and in many ways one of the problems we had is actually the effective method of counterinsurgency we are now pursuing, protecting the larger population centers and making sure the main transport routes are open. we should have been applying that earlier and some of the things we took part in in years gone by may have had some important symbolism to afghans. the real symbolism is protecting

large population centers so people go back to their daily lives. >> paul flynn, prime minister support the campaign by his own constituents and many families of the bereaved who are asking the position between the bodies in the country are rerouted through urban areas so that local people can publicly express their respect and the families can express their grief and the country can be reminded of the true cost of work. >> i am glad the hon. gentleman raised this issue. the constituency of close interest in this, i tried to allow the greatest possible consultation, the armed forces and the ministry of defense and local councilors and across the district council and i believe what has been arrived at is actually a sensible route that is going to have a far better

center for families with in the air base and then there is real money being spent on a memorial guard who will be able to show the respect to their loved ones. a lot of thought has gone into this. we must keep it under review and make sure it is done in the right way but there's a great danger sometimes whether it is the local mp or the prime minister of stepping in without actually allowing people to they term and what is a good outcome. let's see how it works in practice before we jump to conclusions. >> dr. julien live it. >> if we tour achieve -- to achieve a political settlement in afghanistan there must be an incentive on the taliban to negotiate a deal. at the moment there is none. has he received any indication from our american allies that they are contemplating the

preservation of a long-term strategic base in the area which would show the taliban and any future government in which they participate that the return of al qaeda or other international terrorist organizations would not be tolerated and could easily be punished? >> my old friend makes a good point. there is an incentive on the taliban to a join a political process because taliban mid level and high level leaders are being killed in ever larger numbers and what you see now is in some sense lowering morales of the taliban within afghanistan because they're brave mid-level and high level leaders are cowering over the border in pakistan. that is what has happened and we keep that pressure. of course we need to work with the afghan citizens of long-term capability that the afghans can go on dealing with an insurgency

if it is still continuing even in a minor way into the future along the lines he suggested. the taliban are under huge pressure because of the surge and the effectiveness of operations in which we are engaged. >> frank white. >> in afghanistan, we will not drawdown on the people who get diplomatic -- in the country. >> it is hugely important we secure those who work in our embassy. are had the fortune of meeting many people in the kabul embassy, one of the biggest embassies in the world. they have to make huge compromises to work out in such a difficult location and security talking of our agenda. >> laurie stewart. >> it takes with them to set the date of withdrawal but enormous courage to stick to that date. the prime minister reassure us

that no amount of lost lives or over optimistic promises from generals or fear of lack of progress will ever shake his resolve that britain will be entirely out of combat operations by the end of 2014 at the very latest? >> i can give my friend that assurance because it is important to give people a sense of an end time to these combat operations and as he said it is always difficult to change the laydown of british armed forces but i would argue one of the early decisions i made focuses to go out on -- was a hugely important making sure we had the right concentration of forces on the ground to do the job we need to do. i should think it was a very important measure to make us more effective. that doesn't mean lives have been lost in vain. the americans are doing excellent work. you do have to make difficult decisions for the long-term good of your arm forces but also your

country. >> in his discussions with president hamid karzai this prime minister raised the issue of the exodus of thousands of afghans from afghanistan. i raised this in the house previously. 50,000 afghans crossed the border between turkey and greece last year. the threat of al qaeda receiving in afghanistan, it is increasing in yemen. what are we going to do about country shocking by al qaeda? >> i think the hon. gentleman is right. one of the purposes of having a national security council is to sit down and look at the scale of the threat we face and where that threat is coming from and the threat picture is changing in the number of threats coming out of pakistan, afghanistan area is reseeding and a number from yemen and somalia is growing. we have to work out how smart we can be in combating that threat.

that means learning lessons from iraq and afghanistan about how we combat extremism and violence in those countries and i am determined that we learned those lessons. >> can i say i welcome this -- in particular i welcome the prime minister's reminder to hamid karzai that his government is responsible for assuring british taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well. can the prime minister assure british taxpayers measures are in place to assure that doesn't happen? >> i can give that assurance but not everything has been satisfactory up to now. the situation at the kabul bank has been an appalling situation. we now have it moving towards a solution because there will be a forensic audit and recapitalization of the bank but we need to put in place procedures within the afghan government so there isn't the level of corruption and waste of money that there has been.

>> i fully accept the prime minister's argument that by 2014 -- he can't emphasize how many troops are there. i am surprised he can be so certain it will be non-combat drones. if this anticipates the next year is not as positive as he thinks it will be surely it would not have our troops out in a situation where security cannot be secured and may require a combat role. >> let me turn to the hon. lady's question the other way around. if we are still in afghanistan in 2014, in the numbers we are now and in the combat role there will be something fundamentally wrong with the strategy we are pursuing. the point is we have a program, we have a plan. involved the buildup of the afghan national security forces which is going well ended does involve working with our allies which is going well.

it involves close cooperation with the san the afghans all of which can be done. that is what we should focus on. >> can i welcome the statement by the prime minister that a key element in achieving long-term stability in afghanistan and pakistan is providing good quality basic education which we will give them hope and opportunity and either way from sectarian -- >> my hon. friend is entirely right. if you look at the huge population growth in pakistan and the fact that you have more than ten million children out of school, what sort of future will they grow into? with extremism will they be prey to? despite the frustrations sometimes that afghanistan can't do more itself in terms of education i think we are -- very targeted program in order to put more pakistani children through school. >> rev. william mcrae.

>> i welcome the prime minister's statement to the bravery and dedication of our soldiers and security personnel in afghanistan. will the prime minister assure that when we withdraw from afghanistan it will be at a time we have achieved our overriding goal to ensure our own national security? >> our goal is afghanistan can secure itself from al qaeda and terrorist bases without the need for british or other forces. that is the goal and what building up security apparatus is so central. all the other things we talk about today, those are important to security. that is the absolute key. >> steven gilbert. >> i welcome the prime minister's afghan led political solution but -- in honor of the british service personnel who died in afghanistan that solution must be cleared the rights of women and must include

rights of other minority, religious freedom and commitment to developing democracy. can you assure me that in talks about detailed talks, some of his red lines came about? >> those things are guaranteed through the afghan constitution and afghanistan is a huge step forward. knowing president hamid karzai and i do i know he wouldn't agree to an afghanistan that was miles away from the sort of human rights development he wants to see progress but we have to have a hierarchy and the hierarchy of needs from the u.k.'s point of view is to focus on security and the capacity the afghan government has to secure its own country. other things have to take place behind them. >> mr. john woodcock? >> guaranteeing that this will be ordered, is that right? >> we have made announcements about chinooks being ordered and we will stick to those announcements.

>> mary mccloud. >> peace and stability in afghanistan helped by leaving an entire lasting legacy and i welcome the officer -- in school. also agree with me that it is important for education for all especially young girls. >> i do agree. if you want to see a long-term stable afghanistan that cannot be possible by excluding half of the population from being educated. if you look right across north africa and the middle east, permanent education of women is not just important for human-rights but also economic development and peace and progress as well. >> i welcome the prime minister's statements. back in march of this year, honorable members -- the opportunity to preserve afghanistan to our province. and some of the people from --

oppressed by their energy and commitment. what they did need was a $6 million -- and could the prime minister give us an indication that there's going to be a transition of power or security? there needs to be training of police and the start of that in the province. >> i make two points. the police training colleges up and running and working. i visited it myself and it is taking huge steps forward. one of the tragedies of this is police training was the responsibility of other countries and britain had to take on some of that and do it directly and do it very well. the town itself is going to be one of the first places in afghanistan to transition. is imminent already today that security is provided by afghans for afghans.

having been there many times, i find that fact pretty staggering and encouraging and you should too. >> given that the raw material, high proportion of illegal drugs on britain streets starts in afghanistan what progress is being made in getting farmers to grow other things other than poppy and is the prime minister confident the afghan government will continue this work once we left? >> we are seeing progress on this. britain is invested in the wheat seed distribution project. one of the lessons of going to the country repeatedly in the last five years is if you want to do something about poppy cultivation you can talk all you like about destroying crops. the real key is building roads because you have got to enable the afghans to get their produce to market. if they don't have legitimate produce to get to legitimate market the drug dealers will prey on them and give them their poppyseed at the end of harvest and the job is done.

it is about roads and government capacity as much as the criminal justice system. >> given the prime minister's remarks about the need to build the afghan school structure he will have seen some media reports today. i wonder if he would confirm whether the u.k. is considering sending senior civil servants or officers to kabul on a permanent basis? >> i had the honor of meeting with the speaker of the afghan parliament. as i understand there are going to be good and strong relations between this parliament and the afghan parliament which is beginning to establish itself. i leave decisions for the mr. speaker wants to do to mr. speaker. >> i welcome the prime minister's comments about afghanistan but i wonder if he could update the house on what progress is made in schooling and how far we progressed in education and where that leads

us now. >> the hon. gentleman asks a good question. i will write to him

mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i rise this morning to talk about the meeting tomorrow the president has called at the white house, a summit as which it has been referred to. i hope it will be a summit where both sides leave their weapons at the door, sit across the table from one another and begin talking about a comprehensive talking about a comprehensive and began talking about a comprehensive solution to a comprehensive problem. the solution to the problemem ds not create feelings of enemies.e in the last two weeks come we've heard rhetoric coming from the white house, demonizing people who have corporate chess were r demonizing people who make over a millionem dollars.illion i was reminded in this debate about millionaires with a debatt in 1969 in america was one of my rvice. first dates and a return to when the service, become t a business in report came out of the newspaper that 155 americans paid $0.stou i personally was astounded. everybody else was astounded.g congressman to work to close a

methin loophole and did it by creatinge minimum tax, something to make i sure sony paid no tax at least pay their fair share and ahe ali pathetic quotes. today that 155 millionaires pay the alternative minimum tax.3,4 34,200,000 americans are becausm often times when congress goes toes target one person, the to catcher repugnant figure lou. i don't think we need to demonize those and make economye ran. people want to try and save w socials. yet medicare. the president and his two eeeeches last week targeted millionaires, job creators,t wip concentrated enemies.solve t none of that wheill help us sole a problem.one p the president is not thela only. one that can go to both sides. s as they look at the charts on the floor for the last two weeks about what happened in the lastc 30 alminutes to present a selecs with critical things,ate. unemployment fell by 1.9 millio.

people. 17% in terms ofeb the rate. gas prices on the stubble appeared federal debts of 35%. remember of his 10 children tote present a select it. but he so it's not just the president de per per sought, but he is making it worse.lt it's nowh up at $11,250, o health-insurance premiums 20%. in fact the only thing that's done in the last 30 months ofio the expectations of the americaa people. expectations about her future is going to be like. can formamide beta blocker historical suggestions at thehee khite t house. look bac one is to act in history when u we've had a problem so we camee up with big solutions. the 1980s, particular time is fe in the state legislature then god was happening in washington. when i was 39 years old in 1983s ronald reagan and tip of then' haida meeting at the whiten house. allegedly went something likehat

this. the president says social security is going brokeep in 20 years he would discuss the report. o'neill said i agree. the president's amateur comic, t but not one to t raise tax. i't o'neill said i'm like, but i don't what to get the benefit. pick up the extras and said what you want to do quite to push th9 eligibility out to get the systematic and actuarial soundness. i was 39ing in 1983. of i would've been collecting social security at the age of 6r in 2010. are because reagan got togethert they push eligibility out by one year to reach 66, not age 65. a it goes up to messier to save 67 in a few years. the actuarial soundness for 67 years. the reason it is now in trouble again is that retracted aecurity communist difficulties thatcollo cause people come at babyci boomers to go to the bank in asw social security to collect early social security at age 62.ur with a rush to social security

because of unemployment andnd uncertainty in our economy. i recommend any outfit socialse security by pushing the eligibility out.pon did read this and i sandwich with us. rec, it's interesting politically. the president should understand1 and honor should recognize that next year with me98 maybe four d president reagan won 49 of 50 fd states hereafter be fixed sociae security. i don't think which demonizebt d people for saving the bigger problems ofhi our debt.ut ever in this assume room knows l discretionary dollar out and still a $300 billion deficit. m or am i going to fix social medicare, i was disappointed when paul ran in the house came up with a forthright plan can use immediately. face in fact come he was invited to the white house and criticize face-to-face at a conference the president had.started i was just for trying. it's about time all of us started trying.rying

we started trying common groundk we started to look at solutions in a comprehensive way.'s it is not time whether we stop we financing and cytokine numbers.l we stood looking out what it is we can do within our control tot repay their debt overtime to th one reasonable amounts to reduce the deficit over time. of leglation it's not going to be fixed withh one stroke of a pen or onetabler single piece of legislation, but it is going to begin to be fixed united s on both sides at the table and understand this is the fourth quarter of the major super bowl of the future of the united states of america. and continue to throw bricks. u. it's making it worse for othersp at the time they made it better for the american people. i spent the weekend with theting american people that live in thd state of georgia, celebrating our independence and the fourthr of july and spending time at 59y grandchildren remember saturday night watching a my grandchildren playing the.

time, they were looking at me.iw i thought about their future. i thought about what theirtr future is going toy be like int the country they're free and unlimited debt and deficits and inflated the dollar and loweredk expectations and was not the bon america of the fortunate enough to live, work and be going in. e recognizing my age my time, i know my future, the years i have left all about is children in this grandchildren. i want to be ta part of the solution for the problem today, but a part of their dictationsay for the future. i don't want them to look back y and say granddad made it worse. it went into the back and saye f granddad made it better.lead schneier is an opportunity for r the president of the united states to leave. he has templates you can meet with. heol can either choose to takeop isolated enemy is and shooting ic people for heeo can look likf it is deficit commission. i was one of the republicanswith that voted for creation of thehe deficit. they came back with a comprehensiveor recommendation t

december the should of come tonl the floor for debate. code. a double social security, to doh with medicare. it doubled the tax code, expenditures on the tax breakse. and raised opportunities. the president didn't even let im come to the floor of theai congress that the unitedgh stath you the other day. this time i look straight in each other's eyes and said there are solutions out there that good people of goodwill could find a way to do just like ronald reagan and tip o'neilltoa did. i don't want to be a part of just making it worse. i want to be part of just makinn it better. w i hope those of the congresswe t marcy with that type good.tform we adon't create villains to me it worse, but we begin a platform and a template for theo next three to four weeks we can, begin to amortized over time, reduce deficit over time, raisee the expectations of the american people and caused a brighter future for children and part in grandchildren. i yield the floor.n and i >> madam president, i meant wha,

he said about senator isakson from georgia. he's a republican and i'm a democrat and he's my friend and mo we don't agree on everything.his or pretty wreckers are muchhink different. but he said this morning was the right sho thing. we what he had to say this morninga i think should open the eyes of america about where we need toyn go. we yesterday the president sat down and said, we need to be seriousi about deficit reduction. we don't need a.hing we need something that speaks te authoritatively to the world, mahe that the united stateses understands this stuff this stuff is a challenge and is prepared to make the hard choices tosi address. i think the president's right. i was interviewed this morning by it in on a radio station isug said by when you take a mini a deal, just get it over with? a well, if you think you take a at mini deal, he'll probably beherm offered a mini mini deal and ats the end of the day, little of nothing will happen. here's the problem we face and it's a real problem. for every dollar spent inorrow washington, we buy or 40 cents.

with firewood from countries around the world. number one creditor in the china wants us money so we can stand for government purposes.el how do we spend the money? well, if you look at federal employees, more than half of federal employees and the united states of america work for one department, department ofheastet defense. if you look at expenditures, some of the fastest-growing sections of our budget had been on the military side as we wage wars in iraq and that guinness e and and participate in the nato. exercise in libya.no that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that is gone at he%, military spending in the kt last 10 years, cannot be 4%.timt we got the same. times that spending on mandatore programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments. spending for those payments over

the last 10 years that domestich discretionary spending would include things like building highways, keeping prices up andc pain, providing pell grant earlh childhood education company money at the national institute of health punch and health andie comprises 12% of our budget inht the last 10 years, that part of her budget has gone up your%. no increase in spending.itary, most of our spending goes into military, 84% increase over 10 years in mandatory programs 32% e over 10 years. the biggest driver in terms ofta federal spending, the thing wee can't seem to get a hold of,n health care costs. and you know that as an insurane

individual, whether you are run trying to buy health insurance for your family are from a small business and cover the owners and workers or look at it from public the state and local viewpoint when it comes to publicut employees. i could analyze the health caret system, but i do know about it.t but i will tell you it was a uun model that is unsustainable. you cannot watch the cost of health care go out beyondtrol inflation every single year and- t'pect to control deficits, whai is your family deficit come the. city to consider deficit. todaye but that is the reality of where we are today as we face thesi current situation. i listen as a senator from georgia, whom i respect ramagee, talked about what president upoe inherited. i would like to add a little taste to i it. the the last time the federal government balanced the budget, ran a surplus was in the final two years of the clinton

clinton, democrat president of e the united states. we generated a surplus in thosen years that as we collected more money in taxes and revenue and we paid out in manhattan had not been for decades. at that,t point come as william jefferson clinton left office a, president, the national debt of america committee accumulated net national debt of america from george washington to william jefferson clinton was like chile$5 and others. a $5 trillion. and we had a surplus in ourresie annual budget and when president george w. bush took over nex then-president clinton handed him the keys to the white house, he said next year if you follow my budget, you'll have 120 billion-dollar surplus. that's what president george w. $5 trillion national debt,

now fast-forward eight years later. at the end of president george w. bush's eight years in office, let's take a snapshot of what iw looked like then. the national debt was no longer $5,000,000,000,000.8 years later. it was almost $11 trillion. t in more than doubled in an w eight-year periodhe of time. t and when president obama took office, instead of being handed a budget for the next year with esiden $120 billion surplus asama w president bush attended by r esident clinton, presidentea obama was given a project anddgu said next year if you follow oui budget, you'll have times $1.2 trillion deficit. amo 10 times the amount president bush hadn't hasurplus president obama was so chill has that inks deficit. go out that much.happened books don't balance.

what happened in eight years. several things happened. first, we waged two wars in irat and afghanistan but we didn't pay for. i th hink back in my history ani can remember as a kid that every birthday i would receive a savings bond, u.s. savings bond. and i used to think it was interesting. he ended his $2525 u.s. savingsi bond. and i did it cost $18.75. but if i didn't do anything with them and held onto them for $25. so grandma and grandpa would give me $25 savings bonds and they stuck it away. the reason i bring in episode savings bonds for the way we finance the wars. americans sacrificed a month money to the government and thet bought savings bonds. it was in a family tradition,y the tradition of america. t

but when it came to the two most recent wars in iraq and ri we route money from other of countries. such an eight-year period of time, we waged two wars and t private money and added it to the national debt and we did something else.ever has cut no president in the history of the united state ts of america ever has cut taxes. ordy you have your ordinary budget ow government and you've got to pay for it. t that is by no expenditure with hundreds of thousands of troops in the field and family say ands keep them safe and bring themrs home and are spending billions of dollars they are.hat how could you cut taxes? that's what happened. war during the bush administration, they cut taxes. taxes to her son paid for, cut taxes and then the president bush signed into law programs, dramatically expensive programs to pay for, medicare prescription part d was one of them. see how these programs i need t.

the come over is not paid for,al taxes cut. the end of an eight-year period of time, the national debt roset from five to dollars to, almosta $11 trillion. philosophy. the democratic party haser -- a philosophy. there were those of us who thino sometimes we shall one another and learn from one another and n think this is one of those t occasions.rg but he will say to my friends on the republican side of the senate and republican leaders if theor house, those who wereto gv arguing that the best he could get the american economy moving forward at this point is to giv. tax cuts to the wealthiest people e in america and forgottd their history. that's exactly what did under president george w. bush. and look what happened.and the biggest deficits in the when barack obama raised his we hand half of the lincoln bible, that meant the last 700,000 jobe

in ram and it just kept going. using this theory it may give pt them points in opinion polls. pn to t give america points and credibility around the world tor do with the position are taking. that was a heck of a democraticc speech. polemic a little bit further. i sat there for 10 minutes and l listen to everything. presi it was split democrats republicans can the president a commission. house other democratic senators andhoe republican senators and syncingi with house members. we listened to the whole thingnd and i came to the conclusion that there were someat positions the republicans had taken thatat were wrong and there wereo try t positions thato democrats had sd taken the grass around and it was time for us to try to do one thing right in to do it byf the

purchasing. and i voted for the deficit s commission. 11 out of 18 team invested.he i think i surprised more people than i ever imagined, but ivod r think it was the right thing tot do.tate i'm president, the moment i senn voted for, my son sent me an e-mail the fed thanks, dad. that you're doing the right thing. every dad wants to hear that once in a while in their lives.m it meant a lotee to me that myfd son, whom i greatly love would have that kind of respect for that decision. figures so we didn't hear so we need to do now. here's what we need to say to the american people. america is a good strong natione for smart, hard-working and of s the great tradition when it comes to dealing with wars or we'll do it again. don't badmouth this country

because we are lucky.istory has were blessed to be living here.t this country and its history has proven over and over again theye can tackle the biggest challenges and meet them head-on. do you know who wins this battle comes to biggest challenges?he merage americans or do wishthee there was? who were soldiers that went out to b work? olfami they were my brothers at korean war, others just regular old see patriotic duty to go enough to serve and they continue to do it ame and again. spirit americans and others. as well. not only the can-do spirit, but this.any other of my brothers hk four years ofe their lives to the united states navy so many a other familiesnk today. all and it says americans are willing to step up andth participate in ae national effoa by makingme the world together m a nation moving in the righttalt direction they want to be party, to be part s of a it, new york u wants to be part of it. the

about these problems, let's tale about everybody burlap sleeves and getting m involved. i know the poorest of the poor can't. they don't have the resources. it may not have the physical and mental ability.vulnerable every other circumstance, i'm th ready to stand and say we're going to help our most maybe tom vulnerable people come askingsos item to pitch inta and sacrificp is maybe too much in some an circumstances, but the restd of us, sure, let's pitch in. say an first, we shouldn't say anyone g in america he was wealthy andods comfortable in life is going to be spared from sacrifice. everybody has to give.i don't and those were better off than some should give more.as been i don't think that's unfair. ned life is good to them. america's vintage then. and when we need them, theyso t should be askedhe to help.he so the notion of raising taxes on the book is people in americ. should be something which isseco automatically reject. it should be part of theode second, we have a tax code that you couldn't carry with two

arms. it's so big, loaded with lawsfr andan regulations and frankly ms people don't know what's in there. i'll take the people whong doe x know, special f interest lobbyis in t from washington now it's inhe there. lawyers know what's in there anx some people in the committee almost now. people in the an attacker to spend almost $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures., and i most people don't understands wc that.om and i learned a little bit about it in the deficit commission. $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures in the tax code all equals all the credit, all the to reduce deductions, exclusions, everything you can take to$1.2 l reduce your tax burden, okay?ire $1.2 trillion a also represent y entire amount of discretionarye spending each year in the unitet states, a big sum of money. so we spend it in our expenditure levels, defenseythig department all the i way through

the agriculture department and everything in between and we forgive or don't collect the same amount in the tax code. so who benefits from that? the well, let's look at the basics. 70% of american taxpayers do not itemize on their tax returns. ie the file to standard and don't agonize priests of the tax cut doesn't mean anything to them. if there is a special deduction, unless it is a refundable taxnsu credit, perch category, doesn't help them. 70% of americans don't touch it. what are the biggest deductions under the u.s. tax code today? in all my wisdom in educationid and experience from capitol hill in recent hand teacher and a is it's the mortgage interest reduction, right? deduction is employers exclusion for exclusion for health care o premiums.oney some players are able to exclude from income the amount of money they spend for health insurance. for employees here that thetur

biggest peeve number two, mortgage interest deduction. mog i use it. my wife and i bought her home and thought about it ahead of time. okay b we can maybe buy up with% motorhome. a lot of families do.don' but when you take a lotok at the mortgage interest eduction that 70% of americans don't itemize it turns turns out the mortgage interest deduction, the lion share the money for the mortgage interest reduction is veryes highest income categories in america. so that comes as a surprise. you think of the middle-class tax cut. it's not. and it is by and large a tax cut for wealthy people. i want to preserveo that part tn protect middle-income families. but again, shouldn't those at the highest incomego categoriesi went to see some change in the f reduction of demeans american deaths of the family could ben brought under control?at so when you take a look at the tax code, i think we need to bee honest about it.r, everything from there we can

afford to do any longer. up this may be never should.commis people who fund the deficitlax commission a community that we a can actually produce enough in revenue to the efforts to lower marginal tax rates. i i hope my republican friends spoke tonight at this pointl tax because the system can be applied a in 92. a we could lower marginal tax nd for families come even businesses in america, i'm forhe it. t but it meoans being honest intat when the tax code. side of t ais the other thing with the header entitlements. this is great to see my side ofm thean people don't want to talk aboutt it. midwest. i like congressman paul ryan from his archive, and be has stu impartial to him as a result used in janesville, and indian studied this issue and does ituk well. they come to different conclusions, but he did tackle the entitlements.re is i think you had to hard it medicare. doubling p out-of-pocket expenss

for people in medicare is a arms nonstarter. ohealth eliminating medicare as we knowr it and putting these folks in the loving arms of health any insurance companies in their 60s and 70s is not any kindso of favor for the elderly in votf america. so i disagree with his conclusions. h but i don't disagree with paule ryan saying we've got to lookh m honestly at medicare. if we don't touch medicare and 10 or 12 years c ago this broke and we can't let that happen. we have to look at medicare in e sensible way to reduce the cost in the medicare prescription part d program, prescription drugs for seniors, i thinkthe g medicare ought to offeovr an option. the government ought to have anr option.to people can choose voluntarily one way or t the other to try to buy pharmaceutical drugs ineduce bulk, reduce their cost to conc? seniors or u.s. is that a radical concept? we can do it for seniors inreduc

medicare prescription part d, reducing cost of the program costs to seniors and creating aa part of the spectrum of competition in medicare prescription program, one thatoy edople cannot gain if they want to. basic in the face here's theolle last thing i'll say. i don't want to keep themrrow, h waiting, but he will say this.ws tomorrow i'll be honored to be e rsvited to the white house withe senator reid to meet the democrs president and the leadership in the house and senate democrats and republicans. the president has said leave yod all to benefit the poor.ug pretty good advice. the president understands that we do not extend on august 2ndf 0 have a dramatic negative impact on the american economy. it's as if he would default onrd your mortgage, same result. our creditors around g the world who say america is not going to pay his bills on time?

maybe we won't loan the money.re maybe fill in the money will raise the interest rate. if they raise the interest in wr government, will raise interest car or whatever ift happens to s be. it would be the height of the response billy florez to default on america's debt.erest that's a really neat to be extended so that interest rates don't d go up. ameri because if they do, to alert our recovery put more americans out prident' of work.n. the template for a meetingon tomorrow should be the president's deficit commission.r i will only take exception ofsan one thing satirizes the insideht earlier.no he said the president did nota let it come to the floor for atp vote. as deficit commission. fairness to wasn't the presidents responsibility. that's a responsibility to bring it to the floor for a vote.th fr the train for six months now with the handful of other colleagues, democrats and that

republicans to bring this to thn floor so we would have a vote on it. s have a quite reached that point but we should.challe it still remains the best way to approach the deficit challenge,r but everything, underlying everything on the table, looked to the deficit commission. we the c commission gave us guidane i this.s dnd if we get it done and weopln can, we can do this, i think it's going to inspire people around the world to believe again in america's future has ae economy, to invest in america and create jobs.ame to the going to be like the turnaround that occurred when bill clinton came to office instead of taking deficit seriously commit passiv- deficit reduction plan by one the senate when vice president e al gore cast the deciding vote and look what happened to our economy. dramatic increase in job c creation. dramatic and business ownership, dramatic increase in business keeshan, homeownership.

back to me cannot pick and if wu come up with asi bipartisan, sensible, inclusive budget deficit plan of magnitude the president called for yesterday. tter he might thank you, not a: thana president. on a president, direct towere celebrate the rear family,erythg family after months and months of doing everything under the sun but facing our greatest tt's challenge underspending but at intended, were finely focused os not on the floor made state b senate. and that's progress. we have a long way to go, but at least it's progress. for months, i've been urging us as the bo pdy, urging the distinguished majority leader let's focus on our greatest the challenge, federal spending andi debris here in the floor of the senate, now we can tell thelet'e 11th hour, no wait until a crisis atmosphere rendered thatl

limit. let's have a construct a debate, the floor about spending and debt. months, unfortunately we didty r orerything but out on the floorf of the senate. the majority leader looked for every bill, every topic but thay can do with all sorts of cats frankl and bats come in trivial, unnecessary legislation, grave particularly prepared to thisk, grave challenges spending and debt. finally last week on a group of us conservatives said enough isn enough. we said we shouldn'tou go out on our plan july 4th recess,, july 4th break, which is scheduled to be out this week.to and we said we're going to block that. it takes unanimous consent for that to happen.inute, the point about that and sure'rt he and then we surveyed a minute, we're not talking that to be here just to be here.

we're not blocking that to be here and continue to move on tod every other issue underin the so that spending and debt.the floof we did that to finally focus ons the floor of the united states senate on this greatest of all of our current challenges, federal spending and debt tiereo and so we said we're going topro vote against the motion tont greece beat to libya to be. now, libya is an important long matter. in fact, that debate is longt overdue in congress.ot r those votes are long overdue. but that challenge does notnd raise the level of our greatestt fundamental challenge right now iso the nation spending and deb. and so we said we're going to block that motion to lead to ye. another unrelated matter and we did. we rounded up the last half week and we got is necessary for to

block that motion to proceed. and as a result, the distinguished majority leader vitiated that cloture vote yesterday. have an instrument on the senate floor, a motion on the senate floor about this central challenge we face spending and s to. m that is progress. all i urge all of my colleagues to s come down and joined this most important debate. and i continue to earn amtran urged the majority leader to puc meaningful, substantiveotions legislation on the floor. resol we've motion some sense of the senate resolution. it focuses to him the proper buu topic, spending and debt.ate that is progress. but of course a sense of the senate resolution does not do in anything, does not change anything. so we still have further to go l in terms of bringing meaningful

religious lucian to the floor on this, our greatest challenge, the federal spending that.hallea now why do i insist that this is our top challenge at hand? well, the facts speak forederal themselves. spe ofnd every dollar the federal government spends, every dollard over 40 cents is borrowed money. over 40 cents of every dollar. imagine if you ran your household that way.househol wouldn't take long for youd tor hit a financial debt and an virtual bankruptcy if out ofamiy every dollar your family was spending 40 cents is b borrowedw money here but does that mean? out it means for collecting is a yea niche in the $2.2 trillion the year..2 that is a lot of money. $2.2 trillion. the problem is we are spending

$3.7 trillion, way, way more than were caught to.y the distinguished majority whip, mentioned entitlement spending. and i agree with him, that is a big part of the issue, which we for a because medicare is one ot those big entitlement programs. st too is on and on this americy sustainable path. the average american pays about $110,000 into medicare over his or her life time. but on average, the average american was used to benefit mec over $300,000 undramatic care. there again, it is not tough. in that is unsustainable with the n average american pays $110,000 receives the benefit of theentlt

$300,000.am. ycial security, and other huges entitlement program.s this year it's taking in less than its spending on current retirees. that did reckoning was going to be several years down the road. it has been accelerated. h it is here and it tears now,n right now. social security is taking in an giving tax revenue less than it's getting and paying out benefits to retirees. and so what does this mean thath been up and up so we have mores new debt under thisebt administration, more new debt ci under president, then the debt compiled under all of theed previous presidents combined rgth george bush to the nest geo george -- the latest george, george w. bush. more new debt under this president didn't debtse pvious accumulated from all of those c.

previous president combined. we must do something and we must descend being about the real deb problem, spending and debt youhs washington and a bipartisan wayl is a spending problem. t the fundamental problem isn't that were undertaxed.e we all know that no matter what station in life we come from. wn the fundamental problem is that washington is a bit thin at o names like we need to its families sitting around her kitchen tables. and so, washington has a fundamental spending the debt problem and we need real under solutions, rigorous solutions tt get that under control. t how do we go about that? well, to me it really comes down to three important things. cut, cap and balance.

cut, cap and balance. budge cut. we need to cut the budget now. we need to cut the budget this g year. and next year we need immediateo meaningfulrt cuts.ate and that's why i support is immediate, meaningful cuts in the federal budget. we can't put a meaningful cuts for a one-year or five years or 10 years. we need them right now. a few weeks ago we had some budget proposals on the floor.ae we have several republican proposals than we had presidenta obama's proposed budget. cut i the obama should didn't cut any meaningful way.t in it don't look at that in five years and tripled and 10. on the republican side, we predicted alternative out of th. which cut the budget in aow, meaningful way and i voted for t all three. so we need to start now, todayee

was cut. but that's not enough. short term we immediate cut. ban we need medium-term path and we? need balance. mean, if the caps, what do i mean byss cap? i mean, we need established spending caps in each major category of the budget that takes some sort of extra marries supermajority in the congress to supersede. so we need a path to actually get through those cats to a balance budget any reasonable. time. there are several proposals in this iv.use, there is several proposals in the house, mostly from the republican conservative side, all to establish cats that gotoe us on the discipline mandatory pat so we reach the balanced budget. and third and finally, alan. of.

the goal needs to be a balance budget. and it can't be a goal decades of. it needs to be a goal within oue site. and the only way ultimately i believe we can absolutely ensury that is very balanced budget constitutional amendment and i'm very proud to be a co-author siong with all of my republican colleague, every single one of us, co-author of a strong, bud meaningful, substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. this has been debated in this body in the house for some time. last time it was voted on on the floor at the u.s. senate, it came with an unnoticed passing.e we need n to have this protectin enfoed dis straight jacket and enforce this to say of work going to stay there. we're not going to get amnestyee

began. virtually every state in the country has such a balance budget, constitutional amendment under their stat and that of course disciplinele. works. that straitjacket at the state level works.loan works in my state of louisiana.o with such a provision in their state constitution says you can have a state budget out of w balance. and guess what? that works in every of theitjact legislature, working with the governor produced a balance budget.atur produ and if they go out of session e rev minimum later, revenues fall in the budget cuts out of balance, guess what? they had to comeof back in withn a set period of time and they have to rebalance the budget. it's not fun.in torribl not easy. it has been particularly horrible yeathis economy for the last several tha

mandate, because of the constitutional provision, it gets done and that's what wel need at the federal level. we need to budget constitutional amendment. cuts, cap and balance is anubsto important formula, simple but sensitive to get it to where we the next senator has 12 minutesu feedback thank you: a president. so i urge all of my colleagues,s democrats and republicans to come together and continue thist debate and move it to the next level. as i said when i began, the first thing i want do is resist recognize and celebrate progres, because finally after months of resistance from the distinguished majority leader, were finally here on thebo senae floor actually talking about our most pressing challenge, spending and to.it is a

but it is a sense of the senatet resolution. it is a procedural motion. so let's get to the reallegislao substance by heavy meaningful c legislation, cut, cap, pass legislation put on the floor of the senate, open to amendment, d open to wide raging debate. t that is the history and tradition of the senate.n unfortunately, it hasn't been the practice of b dissent in all that much in recent years, gore frying to get back to that. it o people come substantive legislation opposed ending the how that debate, the amendment, the free flow of ideas, cuts, cap and down the. c we can get there. we can do the work of the american people. we cande rein in this runaway if federal and debt in lima and wee

must now because if we fail to meet this challenge this year, if we fail to meet this goi challenge this year, i believe they're going to be dire, dire consequences for our economy ana for all american families of service told. start, having this happen on the floor of the senate is a dark, but it's only a start but notes on this, but substantive legislation on the floor, out spending and debt and.net flo. meaningful substantive nator from thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. >> senator from new york. he' >> before you become a time, makes us think if you dance your question.colleague. >> i'd be happy to.e on >> i think my colleague in history. we should move on this is here.y we certainly agree with that in

the balanced budget amendment wouldn't take effect for years toth come.he my colleague just voted for the rhein budget, which actually increase the deficit.mbers not only did it, deficit numbers down, but it increased the deficit. so how can you reconcile all amt this nice, grandiose talk aboutd a balance budget amendment with? actually increased at. budget, i b first of all, i voted forbale that budget as well as the teen. budget. batumi budget, which was my first choice preference crossese the budget in 10 years. to that would be my first choice. the ryan budget gets his way down the path, compared to whico anything else proposed on the democratic side like the z president's budget, which on the senate floorer actually good. both out of 100. a so while the ryan budget is not my first choice, and its o economic improvements on the path we are currently on.n that

>> babbage's notes my colleague the claim in a time the ryanade budget is not economic step in that direction. als ryan budget as i understand it is not too with being in the ist first decade to reduce thealance deficit. it cuts a lot of spending, but n also cutsdo taxes and raises defense spending. us g >> fma was onto the chair, thath is nott true. the it reduces the deficit. it doesn't balance the budget within the 10 year window, which batumi budget does do that, butl if going in the right direction and reduce the deficit and is ao particularly dramatic improvement overow anything act proposed by this administratione i think my colleagues. >> i think my colleague. clinton i would just save time to walkal the walk,king not to talk to ote folks refuse to step up to the

plate to actually balance the tt budget, we have president to do so been bill clinton, they start talking about it in the balanced ir budget amendment. this balanced budget amendment they talk about is not going tot solve our problem in the next five years. we have to get to work right nok and that's what we're trying tos do on this site with the fair and approach. the balancedwo budget amendmenta my colleaguen speaks about w00t, if you look by its amounts, 18% gdp cuts deeper than the ryan budget, would end in a curiousll noted, would mean that things ws take f for granted that suits te dance that there's inflame inspectors would have to be cuty and then it makes it impossible to close tax with rules for good flllionaires and billionaires. it is not a balanced budgetsmber amendment. it is an unbalanced budget amendment because it simply reflects an ideological view that makes it a colleague and

does not reflect the use of theg t ry majority this chamber forue certainly the american people.or sok let's walk the walk. u that's not just top talk. i think that's very important to know. cutting spending, which is done in the ryan budget is not goinge to work in terms of balancing the budget. you just can't muster justtime s decimate aho fake medicare witht revenues. and that's what i'm here to talk about today. i rise today in support of the e sense of the senate and shares faces. the clock is ticking, time is nd running short. to reach a deal on the deficit e in the ceiling, we are parking lot, not simply talking the tals about some federal balanced budget amendment that islleagues unbalanced in the past.

yesterday the president said that we needed to reach a deal within two weeks in order toento avoid the financial markets. can identify and spending cuts and tax loopholes to close andcn let our republican colleagues doing quite well, since stalking out of the negotiations two weeks ago, and they're sticking to their blind ideology in matte playing political games, like indictingte the president to cog to the capitol when they know hn can't come up to deliver a message to 30 or.dent and the republican leader has continued, to insist that we don can't trace a single dollar in e revenue, no hotter how wasteful the tax breaks or how generous o subsidies. mr. president can use what is coming down to, none ofeficit ad president.ting in the home stretch of a negotiation, our republican we colleagues seem willing to tank know the economy rather than add a single tax of 50.ay or

democrats are committed to to reducing the debt you getting your niche market bubble disco track.he debt though in a room must pay their fair share. we know there has to be compromise to geeat and send yos to catch a strong understanding, came my way or no way. bully to fiscal armageddon. so overte the past several weeke we've offered a number of t wasteful tax breaks that should be at least part of the debtania ending subsidies for oil and owt industry, making record profits. the ethanol industry with 36 hae members on the floodr, including majority leader supported totens their credit and corporate jetty owners will say this $10 billion. paradoxically a republican colleagues are now arguing taxa. breaks real companies and corporate jet owners are dol tov small to consider indian.tainly the only state taxpayers tens of

the billions of dollars. taey say that's not enough. and so, we should be discussings that now. orr mr. president,ra i disagreef tens of billions of dollars we conceive of wasteful subsidies are certainly workers doing. let's turn our attention to the matter at hand. end one of the biggest of allnstead taxpayer giveaways the democrats are trying to end. tax breaks for millionaires andp billionaires.andancer i rise today in strong support of the senate resolution that ed simply supplementing medicare as we know it, is cutting disp scholarships in cancer researchr celinda backs of the middle class, wealth and some breaks pl your thoughts and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. let me repeat that because that is the essence of her dispute here, of our disagreement.$1 mi. campari should any other way. a i know the other side tries tosd

say that raising taxes, trying to imply we want to do and then middle-class t people.t's we don't.axes when appointed touchy person some of us would even gowe had 500 billion. everyone of us on this side endp visit or a millionaire, you should hear some of thes sacrifice. the other side recess and then try to hide this to a raisingcoe taxes.ar it's not raising taxes oshn simply going back to the levelbr under clinton threw a record prosperity, record jobs andna record income growth for the highest people as well as middle-class people. so let me repeat that we have a this. i said i was ending medicare and having college scholarships init cancer research, said of

balancing the best in the backs of the middle class, let's end g in billionaires.s to the this would save over $100 billion a year and hundreds and hundreds of billions in thee longn. run.pect people it's not just a small amount. of i asked my republican colleagues, is that savinghem, t significant amounts to not juste the gop budget and medicare as weic know it should give hundres of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest represt americans. the resolution says and please don't let that happen. and then they say this.the fac a i respect people who have made a lot of money. very many may may see to work hard. got less then.in normal but many of them you talked to them at the first to say they bl should share in the sacrifice. there are some who say no, but e don't think they represent mainstream america are mainstream american opinions.eaf

in normal times, this would be s rinsensus opinion, the fact we shouldn't end medicare as we ree pow it, to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest americans. in normal times that would be consensus position.ologicalri republican presidents and leadersth of the poor decreasinn revenue combined with cutting spending to reduce deficits. ronald reagan, for instance because he was wanting to shrink government, but he was fiscally? responsible. but the republican party has been tried so far to the rightad way and ideological fringe that they now see this balanced approach as an extreme position. what it comes down to is this. th withat republicans out there ane medicare than add tax breaks for billionaires? is a simple choice in this resolution will make the answer to that question clear. those again, will republicans do oil anything, even risky default to owners a protect tax breaks on the highest income people, millionaires and billionaires. and with a rather and medicare

and solely rely on cuts to admit that some tax subsidies such as those for big oil companies and corporate jet owners are wasted taxpayer dollars. well, not a president, we will soon find out i yield the floor. >> up next on c-span 2

>> mission control houston. >> roger discovery. the mac up next, a review of the

recent 2010, 2011 u.s. supreme court term. will hear from former u.s. solicitor general, neil cadieux and other legal analysts. they discuss the wal-mart discrimination lawsuit in other cases. the court is in recess and this new term against the first monday in october. the heritage foundation hosts this to her and. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the heritage foundation. i'm rachel, senior media assist you with the communications department here and i'd like to welcome you all for coming out for the annual event where we've invited the leading experts and top journalists to discuss the supreme court cases from the past turned as well as quick flurry to the court's next term. i would like to offer one reminder.

if you please turn off for science all cell phones and then for viewing on time, if you could please come if you're interested in us in question, if you could use a speaker at heritage.org. again that speaker@heritage.org. to begin, we'll have moderating her first, mr. edwin meese who is chairman of center for legal and judicial studies and also the attorney general of the united states. [applause] >> thank you, rachel. 10 inequities and gentlemen. i join with rachel and thank them on behalf of heritage, specifically center for the clinton judicial studies at communications departments. her journey presenting this program today on her annual scholars and scribes review the supreme court term. while of course the most look for event at the end of every

supreme court term didn't take place this year. that is nobody retired. as he so far is related to the president. looking back over the term it's been an interesting turn. your help from the experts about the legal community and from the journalist community. but it is interesting to note that we have continued one tradition and that is that the most overturned circuit was of course the ninth circuit. our friends from the western part of the united states, with 84% reversal rate. come and now would have been -- had the highest percentage except for the second circuit. he only had two cases they're both reverse preset technically they had a day ninth circuit, but in actual terms of number reversal, the ninth circuit is still at. there were 67 opinions in which they decided the merits of the cases and so you'll be hearing

about those today from our experts from the legal and journalistic communities. and they are certain not come around attend a, who is the toy and d. hammock chair and distinguished professor of jurisprudence at chapman university school of law in california. he's also been on the faculty at george mason university school of life here. he is a graduate of harvard college and harvard law school as clerked for the court of appeals for the second circuit. he has co-authored the most widely used book, he also has written a number on that another suspect street is the constitutional adviser to the supreme national council of cambodia and assisted in writing that countries first democratic constitution. he's also consulted with democracies throughout the world after the implosion of the soviet union, as more and more new countries around the world were able to write democratic

constitutions and developed democratic governments. he's been active in the american bar association in regard to professional response ability. he's also served as a special counsel in the department of defense along with many other contributions to the legal profession into the country country. .. reporter once said you have these big case of the end of the

truman, true story, why don't you spread them out more evenly so we can cover them? and he said why don't you spread out the reporting more evenly? the process we have an opportunity we've had a chance to read the cases for both the press and the professors to comment. i want to start off with a bankruptcy case, stir in the marshall. marshall, pierce marshall, the son of the old mr. marshall, 90-years-old who married 50 also known as anna nicole smith. i think it's kind of -- chief justice robert starts of the case by quoting, referring to it, and i'd actually written an article about this case and the chief had a chance to cite but sadly, he did not. this is really a very important

civil liberties case is even with a bankruptcy case it has to do with jurisdiction. the pierce sood vicki for defamation and meacham sued in probate court said in your late father who already showered her with gifts during her lifetime was going to give me another gift and he didn't because of your fraud. she then files for bankruptcy in california. she loses the probate case before the state court before the jury and she filed in the bankruptcy court, the probate cases still going on and pierce filed a claim of bankruptcy saying the defamation case should be discharge mullen bankruptcy, and that brings the case on interference and the supreme court says bankruptcy judges are not article for the judges, they have no lifetime tenure, they are not confirmed

by the u.s. senate. they don't have all the protection we would expect the federal judges, so they cannot decide these articles, the basic articles on the cases, the five to four opinion, this is one case i think where the president's appointments the vote would have been six to three had it been justice stevens instead of justice kagan. the case that -- an earlier case called the northern pipeline. another case had said some years ago in 1982 that there are limits to get an article iii power, and we call them judges, bankruptcy judges, they get called hearing officers, we can call them clerk said the court. they are not judges. we give them a fancy title and it helps with their restaurant reservation judge so and so for

the restaurant. but they are in no way article for the judges and to give them article iii business where would it stop? there was a plurality opinion in the northern pipeline case that it shouldn't go this far that wasn't a majority, and in the part of the, we are judicial titans. justice brennan, justice marshall, justice blackmun, justice stevens, they all fought you shouldn't do this. we now have a majority of the supreme court in a solid majority coming to the same conclusion and that's what i think is very significant. the structural changes serve to protect us. we think of them as little fights between the branches, but they are more than that. it is limits congressional power to give nonjudicial business, john mcwhorter arbuckle iii. people who want judges. we only have 57 minutes. i'm going to be brief. i will talk fast at the end of seven minutes i will just stop so we will be on time even

though i may not quite be done. another case i want to briefly mention with structure has to do with standing. and i think stifel katyan can talk about this more because this is a case where justice stevens was channeling the acting solicitor general. quite literally. we have a federal income tax. to some extent the federal income tax is inconsistent with the federal system because there's lots of things the government can do by either taxing you were giving you a deduction to encourage you to do certain things, giving you credit. the supreme court decided a long time ago you cannot challenge federal action simply because it gives tax money because everything uses tax money. you have to print up the bill. but they realized we wouldn't want the federal government to tax all of us to appropriate money to build a national church and so there's a special exception under the establishment clause in a case

called class vico and, you cannot tax me. they were quoting an old -- it was james madison's of the talks like that in the old days but not even one-tenth in order to build a church. the establishment clause was the taxing power in that week. but the supreme court has limited the possible extent of that opinion because the court has said for many decades we don't want anybody and his brother to be able to challenge any act on constitutionality, the personality, and we realize if the government does tax me to support a church it doesn't affect my tax bill. it's the government taxes, the government spends. we know there's no relationship between the two. after all we are in deficit of multi trillions but let's say this instant all of our debt was

gone, it wouldn't change our taxes at all because congress had to pass a special bill for that. so said for example conagra's can give property in this case the executive branch giving property to a religious organization, some protestant church because that was distributed pursuant to the property clause, not the taxing and spending calls. in the school case the court said that the credits we have always allowed tax deductions, these are credits and credits are just like deductions. the only difference is the help poor people more that is credit rich people because the progressive income tax burden. i've been babbling on. my time is about up. i will make a brief reference to another case in california the way in which the court was also

reversed. that is one of the few cases the ninth circuit was affirmed, and that had to do with video cases that are -- have lots of violence and basically the court said all kind of things have loss of violence. live coverage of the war in the gulf, and we only can restrict speech and violence is not even obscene. thank you very much. [applause] >> the next speaker is neal katyan. neal is a professor georgetown university law school. he's been the principal deputy solicitor general and was active the solicitor general what the united states. he has clerked for supreme court justice stephen breyer and as well as calabresi at the second circuit.

he attended dartmouth college and yale law school and has been named lawyer of the year in 2006 by lawyers usa. he is one of the 90 greatest lawyers over the last 30 years by the legal times. one of the 30 best advocates for the u.s. supreme court by washingtonian magazine and his credit is gone for many pages here. his academic interests as a professor are in the constitutional law, criminal law and education law. so please join me in welcoming neal katyan. [applause] >> thank you very much, general meese. it's a delight to be here with all of you. i happen to be a bit more constrained what i can say having just left the government a couple of days ago. they were involved in the government and are not going to talk about health care and i had to give you an overview of the term more generally and it's a

kind of give you some more about my kind of public reactions to some cases. it started with some data and kind of an overview what did the supreme court term look like when in 2010 did it look like and to 84 cases in the merits this term, 75 have been led to signed opinions, to affirmed by an equally divided court, five of those cases were reversed and two were dismissed with in profit for granted for other reasons they took them off the dockets. the review would roughly 70% that's our historical par with previous terms. it was roughly the same as in previous terms of the exceptions of the 2006 and the 2007 term when they had a lighter dhaka at. the biggest change in the court was the replacement of justice taken for justice stevens and

how much of a difference did it make? a bunch of people of the beginning of the term fault that she would be recused from a number of cases and that i would have an impact and we now know from the data and merkley to make that case she did recuse from a large number of cases roughly one-third of the cases, 28 cases, but they didn't really according to the numbers matter. 15 of those cases in which the justices were unanimous, 11 came in cases in which the decision was either six to two or five to three, so the two cases in which it made a difference were the ones in which the court affirmed the judgment by an equally divided vote. one was the kosko case involving the first sale doctrine and copyright law and the other considered the constitutionality of the statute of about citizenship and whether out of wedlock mothers and fathers had different standards and the equal protection clause.

justice kagan route seven opinions from the term from a majority opinions on par with what the recent predecessors did. she agreed most frequently with justice so my or roughly 90% of the time and disagreed the most with justice thomas. their agreement rate was only about 62%. one of the dynamic that the numbers don't capture, and those of you who have been to the court this year -- and if you have the opportunity the next year or 2i would strongly urge you doing it or not least listening as the new court has made these arguments available on npv for download, it is a remarkable thing to hear the chief justice, justice alito and justice kagan and i don't need to take away from the others that are fantastic as well but in these three have been in the solicitor general's office and the no painfully well what it's like to argue on the other side and they are really good at asking the question you really don't want asked. it's a really interesting

dynamic on the court right now and makes oral argument tremendously thrilling and terrifying for the advocate. one maybe perhaps a slight corrective to what general meese said and offered me to be the one defending the ninth circuit. i certainly have not been in that position for a long time, the members look roughly similar to those in the other circuits. they -- my numbers were a little different than general meese. i had 79% reversal rates for the ninth circuit compared to a 72% reversal rate over all for all circuits. but it's close. it's close to the other circuits. what's different i think is the number of cases, the absolute number from the ninth circuit, the ninth circuit was reduced 19 times this term which is more than triple the number of reversals from other circuits. the sixth circuit came in second with five reversals. but it's the number of cases

coming from the ninth circuit that is quite remarkable the 26 cases over the last term compared to only 15 from the ninth circuit and proceeding term and 16 in the term before that. and in the term to come in the 2011 term they had already granted the 16 cases from the ninth circuit and acted as only half at this point. one other interesting fact for those of you -- i have been preaching the importance of the patent law for many years and i think this year the number of cases that came from the federal circuit are quite remarkable. the contributed 9% of cases to this year's dhaka, and i think we are seeing that trend going to continue in the future as intellectual property becomes a driver, a major driver of the nation's economy. another way people can look it determines how ideologically divided the court was and

there's different metrics. one could say what is the rate of unanimity in the court? this year was striking, 48% of the cases decided by a unanimous vote. you could look at the number of the fight-for boats are at 20% of the cases decided by the five period four to or 53 kofi if there was a refusal which is roughly similar to the previous five terms that averages 22%. so roughly the same. those statistics will not tell the whole story. some of the cases look deeply contested but turnout to be unanimous. at&t verses fcc is a good sample. when the case was greeted people thought it was going to be the next citizens united. this in view it the privacy rights of corporations. and the freedom of information act where personal privacy and with the corporation, at&t, said this would give rights of privacy because person is

defined to mean corporation under the federal code. and that argument didn't work too well because as the chief justice pointed out in the oral arguments, the word is personal privacy, and there are often situations in which they had a very different meanings from the roots. the chief pointed out an oral arguments craft and crafty, squirrel and squirrely, pastor and pastoral and the like. and the chief justice writing for the unanimous court found at&t did not have the right to personal privacy and he concluded his opinion with a wonderful first, quote, we trust that at&t will not take it personally. [laughter] so there was a high rate of the so called ideological division for the term and in terms of five period four, 53 cody fisa the kaput decision my time is up but i would be delighted to talk about those cases in particular and the global warming case and others in the question-and-answer period. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. our next and final speaker is victor schwartz, who's kind of the dean of the tort law advocates. he's a partner in the washington, d.c. office of the kansas city based where he shares its public policy group, and that agrippa's devoted to public policy issues that will help improve the civil justice system. he also had an acting appellate process and serves on the board of directors of the civil justice instituted george mason school of law. he also is that served in the past as a professor of the acting dean of cincinnati college law, he's chair of the federal interagency task force on product liability as the department has been in the past. he's a life member of the american law institute statement to words and he's also been

named by the national law journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the united states so it's great to have him with us and please join me to welcoming victor schwartz. [applause] >> thank you congenital meese. when i was asked by fought hmm because i am schwartz on torts, not to green on the screen. let's talk about justice and what the court did. all of you know about the wal-mart case. that was given a lot of publicity. and the court in their majority adhered to with the clause actions were all about. they occur when things are in common, and here you had a million women who claimed they were discriminated against, they had lowercase come that they didn't get raises, and yet as justice scalia said there was no group that held the class-action

together, it was different people in different areas, decisions are made locally, the decision was correct, and i hope it the cry goes out to every court in america not to certify the huge class-action because once they do it is for a defendant like the last hand. the checkbook has to come out because you are certified at the class and you were going to be in for a real problem to realize is that the plaintiffs have a good econ congress to overrule the case. they did that with ledbetter but i don't think they will be successful here. the individuals can bring smaller cases if they wish and if they'd been discriminated against it's not there for an individual case. then the preemption part. i was thinking about this this morning because the tv is filled with the case the anthony case and probably every american can give you an opinion on it but to 70% of americans who take drugs

know that they no longer will be able to bring a lawsuit if they take a generic drug. 70% of americans to a generic, and the supreme court held that preemption applies with generic drugs. but why is that true? two years ago the city to get brand name drug, you can bring a torts sort and it's the engine for safety and there's no preemption and with the broad company can change the warnings without going to the fda, they have to ask forgiveness, not permission. with the generic drug however they cannot change the warnings by themselves. they have to get permission first. so, america, if you to get generic you're not going to be able to sue for duty to warn and to to get branded name you can. if you have a medical device, you can. so america figured that out. of the plaintiffs call will be in congress, believe me, to try to have preemption for everything.

then they had jurisdiction. companies sell stuff in the united states and when can they be sued? because of time limits i can't go into details so i will get into the pad bottom of mcintyre. they say if you know a product is going to be used in the stream of commerce is not to allow somebody to bring a lawsuit against you. you have to target, you have to target a particular state. in the case that was probably the most extreme from the point of view of those who think we should be able to sue foreign companies more easily there was a distributor who was ordered by the company that made machine polls to sell as much product as possible. but they never come of the defendant ever said to sell anything in new jersey and they made no purposeful act to sell in new jersey and was a machine tool and a person who lost fingers but the court held that wasn't enough targeting.

i know you're the foreign manufacturers liable the act will bring the plaintiffs in to congress to try to modify the law. a little bit of a problem here because of the other cases involve statutes this involves the constitution of the united states. but i would expect reaction in congress on that one. at&t and concepcion was mandatory of observation and commerce said with mandatory arbitration you have to have the ability to form a class action. the supreme court fought flights-for and said that interferes in the purpose of the federal arbitration act. you can't go on a mandatory class action on to that act. if you read the opinion you will see it follows the spirit and letter of the law. i expect once again our friends in the plaintiffs of to be back and more so. franklin has a hit to try to get rid of mandatory arbitration

altogether, not merely to allow class actions, and congress will be probably the final arbiter of whether we have in our mandatory arbitration with the scope of it is. api thought was the most interesting case in my point of view. it involved the tort of nuisance. there eight attorney generals served five power companies saying that they committed nuisance by admitting greenhouse gases and that they should reduce them by 3% a year over the next ten years. now the court used the theory called displacement and questions i will answer in the questions of what that's all about. they said the epa displaced the courts making decisions of this kind. they said even if the epa does not act on its responsibilities no tort suits will be allowed by the attorney general's and there's attorneys i've heard two

very tiny things, but the spirit of the case was set on page 14 where justice ginsberg of all folks really told the difference between what the courts can do and what the executive branch and congress can do. courts can call witnesses, they can't hold public hearings, they can't have notice and comment and those words were in the opinion, so i think in other cases this is meaningful to say no. the greenhouse gas problem is to be solved by congress and agencies and not the court. the final kiss i will mention is probably the most obscure for some of you. i don't know how many of you here know what fela, federal employers' liability act doesn't have to do with employers, it has to do with real roads, and they have this historic anachronism. there is no workers' comp, so if you are working on a railroad and are injured, and use of a railroad company and that's what

you do. and fela came in when the great grandfathers of the kind people who operate railroads decided to keep the tort law not workers' comp, and tort law is very strong against the railroads. you only have to prove a scintilla of negligence, that in this decision and for those of you lawyers remember and law school proximate cause, and the issue was whether proximate cause was required. a majority of the court -- so they are not always for defendant's -- said a proximate cause is not required. use your imagination, just think about it for a moment, about what a real road might be a responsible for. there's no breaks. this breaks on the railroad but none on tort law, and if you want some amusement look at the hypothetical, justice roberts used and it's the only time i was cited as course in the dissent that's where i belong. thank you. [applause]

>> i thank of the speakers at the into the time limits scrupulously which means we have time for a little discussion among them. if you want to agree, disagree or otherwise comment on each other let's start off with rahm. >> i will defer. >> neal? >> the one thing i felt i would pick up on is the american electric case the global greenhouse gas case. so in the case, what happened is these eight states said they were contributing to the global cause of global warming and therefore it public common law cause of action could add here against them and i think that he's right to point to what justice ginsberg said on page 14. in the modern-day lot of people think the courts can solve a lot of things and maybe that's right at the margins, but the global greenhouse gas problem and

whether some people might not think there is a problem, some people think it's the most pressing thing facing the world, either way the idea we are going to have a federal judge decide this is ridiculous and that is the spirit with the court says these decisions committed to the political branches, responsive, accountable branches, and i think it is a useful collected in this age of courts can solve all our problems and i think this is a good marker from the court's perspective. >> it's interesting to note the court in the previous term had allowed the epa to get into this field and so this was the consensus in the general idea. >> in 2007 and was called massachusetts versus the epa, it was a contested case of a 5-for decision but it did allow the epa under the auspices of the clean air act to regulate in the area.

>> in the epa case a couple of years ago of the liberals fought the government is going to get involved, surface is a bad decision, but it led to the supreme court i think unanimously deciding in overturning the second circuit. we don't have federal judges decide all about global warming and let the justice ginsburg wrote a relatively brief opinion because it saves trees. [laughter] >> what would you like to comment on? >> in the case to take a look at the foot note to the law school to read the footnote first i'd forgotten that lesson. but in foot note to justice ginsburg said the court has no official opinion on global warming and most people right epa and it is often cited as of the supreme court taking judicial notice of that fact, so

foot node ii is important and had little complicity. the impact of the cases involving the preemption is going to be very interesting. probably in this room in the next three months someone will go to a pharmacy, to cut the drug if they already have the the has been taking, and it won't be the same drug. they won't even know about it until they bring it home because in many states that switch can be made and you know nothing about it until you open that little paper that the veto bad. should you know in one case if there's a failure of warning you may not be able to do with that information be part of it? should you know they are not exactly the same has brand new drugs all pothier deemed to be similar? they're maybe some of the

disclosure laws in the states as the result of the decision. i don't know. but certainly it provides a factor for the state's rethinking how much information you should have. you may decide you don't want to pay five times or ten times the price but that may be one implication. the other is whether congress will get back involved in the preemption business. for sure my friends in the bar are going to go there and say there's one thing where the majority and minority disagreed they must say the system doesn't make any sense that there should be protection for manufacturers and medical devices for the drugs, excuse me, medical devices and generic drugs and not branded drugs, and mostly sites in congress over that, and it's very interesting to watch because it affects all of us, affects every american in any of the decisions that i mentioned.

>> can i -- one other case i wanted to get on the table for folks to discuss is the case of general meese. you were involved in ashcroft versus al-kidd. individual was detained at the airport for saudi arabia and was detained on a material witness warrant and there were no charges brought against him and he brought suit singing the fourth amendment rights were violated and the ninth circuit permitted that lawsuit to go forward a money damages claim against the attorney general of the united states and the supreme court again you can think of this as a contested would have been ideological think they unanimously reversed the ninth circuit there and said that qualified immunity existed to protect attorneys general in that situation. it's a tremendously important ruling and i found the former attorney general santos attorney

general or tremendously worried about a ruling that would have caused them to be personally on the hook for decisions they made to try to protect the nation's security for people like me on different sides of different national security cases one thing we should all agree on is the notion personal monetary liability should be off the table for when there is good faith by the government officials and the tearing out the nation's protecting us. >> any comments from any of the panel? >> it's a nice point not only is the case important but you might just look at the results and say that's against civil liberties you don't have a remedy. but it was unanimous, and there were a lot of either business of civil liberties cases that were talked about of opponents as geologically different but they weren't really. there's a case in kentucky the police followed the incipit the

drug dealers inside the apartment complex, the small something and break into it the courses you don't need the search warrant under the circumstances. only to justice ginsberg sentenced it. i felt kind of interesting case because it was a clear case and i think if they reversed the lower court to do wonder reverse and remand it. the number of cases, nine to zero cases when the supreme court is reversing the lower court and that tells you something that is the judges of the lower court don't care that much about the supreme court. sure is the ninth circuit judge reinhardt they can't take them all. i will do what i always said, i will do what i want to read it can't take them all. john is here today but from "the wall street journal" versus milwaukee, it had to do actually

with security business case, business law, no dissent. the question is whether there was lost causation and transaction causation. transaction causation means your fraud caused you to enter into the transaction. i sold to life insurance and i wouldn't have sold this to had you told me honestly you were a heavy smoker but then you walk across the street and get hit by the bus and your state wants to collect life insurance and lost causation is to show that the loss, the fraud calls the loss. well, your smoking didn't cause you to get hit by the bus. the supreme court said no dissent that all you need is transaction causation. you don't need lost causation. we might call that a loss for business. i realize the case is out there, but i think in general the court looks at the law which is why you get these cases the person to one or 7-2, nine crusco zero

and so on and once in awhile there's an emotional case and it breaks down in a theological grounds. chamber of commerce laws with business lost that one that was in arizona where the court tells us that it's constitutional for arizona to punish, to go with a license of a business that knowingly hauliers an illegal alien. that was 5-for in business lost it at the majority said the statute says we are not preempted business licenses and that's how it came to the decision. it isn't like they are for or against plaintiffs' attorneys. looking at the statute the justice especially scalia is if the statute is wrong congress ought to fix it. we are not the legislature. they ought to take the responsibility. >> one brief corrected for

possible disagreement with my friend about whether or not we can look at this term is the judges in the lower courts don't care about what the supreme court believes or cares about the law. the number of cases the court is taking now is a lot lower than 20 or 40 years ago when they gained 130 roughly the same numbers and i think one interesting thing that's happening is true, there are those judges who don't care about the court. there are also an equal number of judges who care about the court and are dissenting from the denial of the entente cases. i'm thinking of the judge in particular in the ninth circuit riding wonderful opinion after opinion, criticizing his colleague when they are defining the supreme court, and that becomes an important template for both the solicitor general's office and at the court more generally on how to think about a case. so in the ashcroft versus al-kidd case the judge writes this brilliant opinion, and

ultimately much of that is reflected in the supreme court decided. >> what you said i don't mean to paint too broad of a brush but there is a brash. >> it is interesting to have steve reinhardt on the scene court and the back-and-forth rather aggressively. >> but they never choke each other. [laughter] >> no matter how they might like to. >> i think we have gotten excellent comments and an excellent preludin to the discussion that will come from the audience, so we invite you to raise your hand and asks questions and please, wait for the microphone to reach you before you ask your question. we will start with roger in the front row here. >> thank you. i want to pick up on the preemption issue. the example you used, victor, understand correctly is the pharmacy switching drugs and

that strikes me as the very much akin to the case you diluted to in your for mur remarks which is acting at the local level the had ministered double dose ignored the sixth bold warnings and as justice alito said what a good with the seventh morning have made in the circumstance like that? it seems to me we still have an action in the tort against the pharmacy. this isn't a duty to warn issue. this is as the leader said in the vermont case this was a medical malpractice case that the justice stevens bootstrapped into the frontal assault on the fda's regulatory responsibilities it seems to me in the example you used that is exactly what they would have.

so again, i can't remember which of you said what we've got today is the center of the complaints about the state of the law improperly directed to the fda for errors in their duty to warn the regulations. >> i disagree with the case principally because what you said, it was a malpractice case, and by the ledger domain, the majority turned it into a case against the drug companies which was a deep pocket made the had won the case against the doctor but there wasn't enough money, so they went after why -- wyatt. one more warning wouldn't have made a difference that's where they were. it's interesting when i look at the to cases. the engine that drove the public policy engine, not just the words, they drove stevens in the

case was his belief stated in the opinion that somehow you need the tort law to guarantee the safety of the american public, and very able lawyers advocates said he put that language in the opinion. maybe he did, but when you come to this term and the case involving generics, those words are not in the majority, they are in the descent that you need tort law to really protect the american public. the american public should be protected by the fda, not have injuries around this country second-guess what the fda has done. there's problems with the fda, fix it. if there's problems people can recover, find other means to compensate them. but to have the jury is speculate about warnings where they have no background in that area is and sound.

but to say what the others feel, the plaintiffs' bar hates branches. if you go to a convention and mention preemption it's almost like talking about saddam hussein at a rally. it just doesn't work. and so the -- they are going to go to congress and try to change things. i don't think they will get there, but there are many ways they can try to change it so they get preemption anywhere. the case to summon up was a bad case. pharmacies are just following oh-la-la when they don't give information about what the implications are of the generics versus brand names. they don't have that responsibility. and in some states you do have some information before you make the purchase. and it is interesting to me just to see this very quickly that the tort cases are in effect the way we live. the affect our lives, and that

come to me, is why i like the subject so much. some of the other opinions are very lofty and very important, but they don't affect how you live day-by-day in a lot of those torch tease is due. >> in the all over here. >> i'm general mcknight. i spent about the last 60 years and telecommunications and you mentioned the drivers in the future would be the intellectual property if. the courts and the patent office made were lending itself to words never being able to win a case of the intellectual property because the larger firms seem to have the ability for small guide as he tries to protect his intellectual property patents and go forward on and hinging on that. i am the chairman of the

information learning which is a not-for-profit, and we have intellectual property we were trying to protect, and you need almost fort knox to go against them with these big companies even though you are properly endowed with the patent office patents. so i would like you to tell me how we are going to have destroyed in the community of the innovators to fight the big companies all-time. thank you. >> i think that is much more a question congress is debating right now in the court. the court is getting into it at the margins, but that is a very deep and important policy question. there are people who think the small guys will now have money on their side with hedge funds and others supporting them. whether that is true or not i don't want to get into it but i agree with you. if we want to have a vibrant future in the information economy to figure out it doesn't strike the right balance.

>> anybody else want to comment on that victor? >> the hour expenses. that is just the fact of life. we have an unfortunate circumstance is that people can afford to prosecute these cases are either the big corporations, big entities like the unions, or at a very low-level legal aid. some cases after the supreme court. the average person it's very hard. a partner in a major d.c. law firm told me years ago i hope i never get into trouble because i cannot afford myself. [laughter] >> okay. over here on the ogle. ed? >> question for neal. this is a quiet term, for better works to be interesting and what you see as the key cases. >> sure. there's the possibility that the term could be and some people are calling it the turn-of-the-century and the like. you know, there is a bunch of

cases that are in the lower court that are going to be petitions whether or not the court takes them remains to be seen. there's obviously the affordable care act. president obama's health care initiative and whether or not that will be hurt by the court. we had won court decisions so far and several others to come in the weeks. there's the defense of marriage act and a case pending in the first circuit right now and whether or not that will, you know, be heard by the court, what the court of appeals does. there is a case out of texas that involves a university of texas affirmative action policy. that the fifth circuit recently decided and upheld the policy there. so those are three big ones, and i sure i'm leaving lots of others off. now whether or not the law will get their this term depends on timing and a lot of other things

but sure, there's the possibility this term could be quite a dramatic one. >> picking up on the wrong and neal colloquy toward the end of the discussion where in the lower courts tend to ignore for lack of a better verb the supreme court precedent. how much of that, and i realize there is no perfect answer but opinions are interesting as far as i'm concerned. how much of that has to do with a willful desire to ignore the court is as long as you can't take them all and how much of it may deal more with the fact that the court, the high court that is the core is a relevant stopped short of a bright line

and particularly of oregon case in the field where the punitive damages are the issue. the high court has the course of the last 15 or 20 years offered several opinions that dealt with the limiting of punitive damages, but yet this court continues to define the supreme court and i would be interested in your opinion as to how much of it is willfully ignoring the high court and how much of it is mixed signals from the high court. thank you. >> there are a lot of mixed signals cases in the problem. you take marshall, the disagreement between the court and scalia who joined the opinion is that several factors to way and thought there should be a bright white full and the

supreme court decided what is at 53 kobach three and the courts can have habeas jurisdiction in detainee's from guantanamo and they give a whole bunch of reasons, and it does it cover afghanistan, does it cover haiti is from iraq? lower courts have split and some people in congress get away from the supreme court jurisdiction over lee's cases. because it doesn't come up with less 15 different trees is here to decide what's best because they have to hear all these cases and to the extent possible it is good to draw a bright line. i think they do not draw the right line sometimes because you're not sure what it should be. they just have a sense that this case came out wrong. we have judges in good faith giving an opening and going

forward. and then sometimes as the judge reinhardt says i will do what i think is best, and that's, you know, president of my commission says nothing about you editing my opinion. i write what i want. >> judge reinhardt has left out that constitutional provision for the tender is on good behavior. [laughter] >> i'm willing to generally believe, and i can't prove this in any mathematical way that that they are trying hard to follow the constitution and law of the united states, and i actually think that the numbers suggest we have more of that in the modern day in 20 or 30 years ago. why is that? a couple of things might be going on. one is just the rise of electronic databases like lexus which make it just easier for courts to find out what other courts are doing. and also the rise of the supreme court bar that is looking for every opportunity for the

disagreement in the lower courts because the moment a court does stood out of line, there are ten calls from the supreme court lawyers that say to the moving party the supreme court may be interested in this because the lower court steps out of line and i will do your case for free just let me file your petition. so those kind of things i think are disincentives and very few judges really want to get reversed by the supreme court regardless of what they might say in terms of their bravado and so on. some look, at the end of the day there are cases in lock the door and should be deeply contested. i mean, due process, what the founders enshrined in the document, that happens to be a rather difficult to raise to interpret and there's different ways of doing it. in the cases i think in the spirit of question is right to as the heartland of cases out there that should not be for this agreement, and some of that is being borne out in the room.

>> in the weapons case they confess error on part of it. that is significant because the federal government told the court the court of appeals still has a dismal year rule in bonn against the united states where this woman is prosecuted as some of the chemical weapons treaty because she disgruntled a woman who had been coupled by her friend, her husband impregnated her friend so she put some calls to chemicals on the mailbox and things like that, and that's not just a mailbox but things not collected with u.s. mail, that is a civil offense enacted pursuant to the weapons treaty. she said was unconstitutional, you can't read the treaty that far. that may be right or wrong. she is wrong but certainly true you ought to be able to raise issues and the court of appeals

said no you don't have the standing to raise that. how are you heard? this is the state interest, and the court reversed that and that was a correct decision. i think in the lower court i think the lower court read a victim of supreme court decision that the supreme court said i don't think they acted in good faith, but the cases between the trial court and court of appeals there is a judge in the cases the gets reversed to the rules for the impleader gets reversed two-thirds of the time on appeal. think of all the cases that are not brought on appeal because it costs money to appeal and she ought to be worried about her batting average, she really should be, not in the sense that she would go down in in the statistics put in the sense of what am i doing wrong and some judges don't care about that.

>> the chemical weapons stake the professor was talking about a moment ago. there's a remarkable thing the solicitor general's office does in almost every term since 1870. they look at cases and they say we shouldn't have won that one below and in this case we looked at and want to make the federal wisdom that finally did the inimitable comer of the constitution that will result to the states india, she should be able to make that claim, and so we told the supreme court take this case even though we lost, so they took the case and in the appointed a private lawyer to argue with the government would have argued in terms of her not having a legal standing, the right to bring the case and then after hearing the oral arguments they wrote an opinion that said that that private lawyer wasn't right for their service, vice versa, but at the end of the day after hearing the argument.

>> think about the prosecutor in the perry mason series that he confessed error. there would be no novels, no nothing. [laughter] >> sometimes the courts and the car in the tory area and follow the latter in the supreme court issued but not the spirit, and one of my favorites was in the plaintiffs' court in texas they have some good places to make a living and the court had said the highlight line for punitive damage is $9 of the punitive for every 1 dollar a factual or compensatory damages. so a person who never earned more than maybe a thousand dollars a year of $100 million compensatory award and 900 million in the putative, a billion dollars will recycle the supreme court mine-1, so that's -- what i have seen with

stewart, so they don't define, the figure out how we comply and just get the reasoning behind the opinion. >> we've come approximately to the end of the hour and will turn to our journalist friends but first i would like to thank our legal experts who have rendered their decisions on the decisions of the supreme court and please, join me in expressing our appreciation to the panel. [applause] >> i want to briefly introduce our moderator for the second

panel as to the top journalist. the second panel will be todd, the director here at the heritage center for the legal and judicial studies and prior to joining heritage he solved the to serve all three branches of government as a chief counsel for the u.s. house of representatives subcommittee on national economic growth, natural resources and regulatory affairs in the office of legal counsel what the department of justice and as a law clerk for the honorable edith jones as the fifth circuit of appeals. in addition to his heritage foundation he also served as a commissioner on the u.s. commission for civil rights. [applause] -- before, rachel and i want to thank the other colleagues in the communications department. they allow was in the legal department, although we are

co-sponsors, to moderate the panel of lawyers but we certainly could do it without them. it's my pleasure to introduce this second panel of scholars who also happen to be scribes. i won't take much of our distinguished panel last time by telling you how distinguished they are but protocol requires by at least to do so briefly. jess speed will speak first. he's currently "the wall street journal" writer who's covered the supreme court since 2005 and as one of the returning panelists on our panel today. he's written or contributed to several related books and is currently finishing one on the the military commissions relating to the terrorist suspects, and he has won several awards for his release of reporting. both he and attorney general meese cretul we did from uc-berkeley law school, but i

suspect it was a few years apart. jess currently teaches a course on the supreme court at the university of colorado washington center. i will introduce the other panelists at this time as well and we will recognize them one at a time. michael doyle was beatniks. he's the correspondent for the mcclatchy newspapers. i have not read his book on the 19th century conspiracy along with the glock river canal, but i know it must be excellent given his very clear and sometimes entertaining reporting on the supreme court more obscure decision. to continue the degree to separation to ed meese, michael described decreasing his studies of all from the undergraduate university yale and i'm not sure that was at the same time either. like jeff, michael also teaches at george washington university.

stuart taylor will be the last but certainly not least in any member or in any way on this panel. he's currently a contributing editor to the national journal in newsweek. he's also in on president senior fellow at the brookings institution and the walls have not come down. its previously a supreme court correspondent for "the new york times" and the legal commentator for the american lawyer media. he graduated from harvard law school but despite the handicap has done quite well for himself including his outstanding books on the shameful injustice of the duke lacrosse case which he co-wrote with professor casey johnson. insight from that book might be relevant today regarding the failed criminal charges for dominique or pc anthony but hopefully today we will urge