see back in the heyday of the private student lending market, we saw a lot of families who weren't necessarily going to for-profit colleges. their student was going to say

at music school. i wrote an article about a gardener who sent his son to college, the first in the family to go to college. the dad made about $21,000 a year family income and he was able to borrow six figures for his son. there just was no underwriting. this lender by the way saddled with the new york attorney general's office because i don't know of you guys remember, it was called the preferred lender list where you know lenders were in some cases accused of paying b-schools for preferential treatment and for them to steer students toward a particular loan products. that was the case with this lender. when you think about, you can sort of understand some of the anger and how a generation may rightly feel very duped in some ways and stock with very little

relief at this point now that they are so far in debt. >> now a look at the tenure and legacy of house speaker john boehner. we will show you as much of the "washington journal" segment as we can until the richard nixon 100 birthday gala in about half an hour. >> host: on wednesday here in the "washington journal" in our last hour taking look at a recent magazine piece. we are joined by robert costa at national review to talk about a couple of pieces you have written. we will start with the most recent. "boehner the survivor" is what you wrote on january 4, 2014. 13, excuse me.

why is he a survivor? >> guest: john boehner has had a very tough time recently controlling the republican house caucus is not an easy job. john boehner who grew up in southern ohio worked at his families bar and restaurant come he knows how to corral a lot of people and he had a lot of siblings but even after that experience it's a tough job. he struggled to bring plan v to the floor analysis fiscal cliff deal. on the fiscal cliff phot that came from the sanity struggle to get republican votes on it, only 85 republicans voted for. even eric cantor and kevin mccarthy the house number two and number three voted against it so john boehner fits into this new session under a lot of pressure. he deflected a coup attempt on the speaker vote. only 12 people voted again so he survived that but he struggling to really assert himself as speaker who has all the power he wielded. >> host: you write about this quiet coup that happened during a public vote for speaker that

takes place on the floor and we of course on c-span cover the whole thing. 12 republicans defected them voted for somebody else. what was going on behind-the-scenes? >> guest: it was a fascinating scene of for political junkies. i was outside of the house for the day and there were rum things that maybe 20 members perhaps would be trying to revolt against a speaker and to get to a second ballot on the speaker vote he needed 17 defections. 17 defections berkman and nine republicans voted against ban or in voted for someone else and one person voted for the president to people abstain. that was really a show of real discussed among some members about the house republican leadership, they didn't like plan v in the fiscal cliff is happening that was happening behind the scenes everyone was talking to each other especially the back dentures and the conservatives in the house, nick laney of south carolina raul -- and justin amash of the class of 2010. this was a huge class of republicans coming to the house and they really had an assertive

presence over the last two years and they were unhappy with boehner but they weren't able to get enough votes on their side. >> host: who organized it? you mentioned some names but how well organized was it? there were more conservatives than that. talk about that. >> guest: that's a great point. i was on the phone yesterday with jeff landry. he he's a former member of congress now from louisiana, a real boehner critic and he was trying to organize some public dissent against john boehner. a lot of this started out as a hashtag on twitter during a conservative activist using a hashtag on twitter called fire boehner. caught fire among a lot of conservative activist and jeff landry, this outgoing congressman in the winter of 2012 notice what was happening on twitter. he called ron meyer and try to create it public campaign that within the house jeff landry told me it was very

disorganized. members were very unsure even those who dislike boehner behind the scenes about what to do. some of them wanted to push for a secret ballot on the house floor. that never happened. with a lot of members were very cautious. if you break with boehner and publicly go against the speaker there perhaps goes your republican dollars in support from the speaker when it comes to fundraising. your political support is going to be under question so it's a risky move. >> host: any rumblings that these people you mentioned,, that there will be consequences? believe me i've spoken to a lot of staff who are nervous. >> host: about committee assignments? >> guest: subcommittee chairmanships and maybe they won't get them in the future. boehner has said he's not going to have consequences but there's a feeling in the house if you do

go against leadership there'll be a consequence down the line even if boehner says there's not. >> host: what about the speaker's relationship with eric cantor and as all of this is happening what is eric cantor doing? >> guest: a lot of these rebels in the conservative part of the house republican caucus where courting cancer and willing cantor because if there is a second ballot on the house floor they didn't have the conservative conference of the consensus candidate that they were hoping cantor would step up. that never happened and he was projecting his unity with speaker boehner, he wanted no part to do with this. that's an important point that cantor wasn't involved behind the scenes more publicly in this coup but he did break with the speaker on the fiscal cliff vote. remember 1990 nuking rich broke with fellow house republicans leaders in that set him up as a conservative champion in the years to come. to have some kind of revolution but when the next election for

speaker happens to republican conference conservatives especiallespeciall y within the caucus will remember how cantor handled the fiscal cliff and that may help them. there were other high-profile republicans who voted it had interestiinteresti ng votes. paul wright in the house voted for it. marco rubio on the senate votes no on it. what he think the implications are about? >> guest: to see there are 2016 implications is a little far-fetched but if you love politics you have to look at it. when i was inside of the house chamber watching the fiscal vote, he really is a power player within the party. one of the most important things he is done since the campaign is aligned himself for speaker john boehner and a lot of people did not expect this. one of the the reasons his dumbest and i've spoken people who are close to right write is he wants to make 2013 if budget

year. in order to do that he needs boehner support so i don't think ryan will actively break with boehner. >> guest: we have not heard him paul ryan after the president's contest was over. he has been quiet. why? >> guest: it's another great question. he hasn't given many interviews and this is a guy who is friendly with many reporters. i don't think he wanted his fingerprints on the fiscal cliff mass. he knew there was never going to be a perfect outcome. >> guest: what does the 113th congress hole for him? what does 2013 look like for paul ryan? >> guest: you really get the sense that paul ryan because how

he handled the skull cliff, because he went with speaker boehner he's in a position to be an influential person because the speaker knows he can trust paul ryan at the crisis moment to stick with them so you will see paul ryan roll out his budget in the spring and continue to articulate what republicans want on entitlement reform. i think you will see paul ryan start to speak up as the debt ceiling approaches and talk about the prosperity needed. >> guest: marco rubio in the senate, what to expect from him? >> guest: it's amazing he had as much dissent on the fiscal cliff deal. most republicans voted for the fiscal cliff deal whereas in the house of course it was real mess. i think marco rubio, his whole argument of nice boat to him the night of the voted 2:00 a.m. as he was walking out. he said he needed something to solve entitlement crisis not this piecemeal reform the doesn't that the problem. a lot of people interpreted that as very political, not realistic to have that big package at this

time with this divided congress. he is all about these principles and that is why i think we will both continue to hear from rubio articulation of the principles. >> host: we are talking about the republican party and its leadership. stanley north carolina, republican. go ahead, you're in the air. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. it's funny, i'm glad that this gentleman address this issue with boehner as the survivor. you know, i am a very writes conservative but i try to be open-minded. i think the biggest challenge that boehner -- actually i want to call it the conservative party is that number one we need to put better candidates up and running but number two cobb is that we are you know shooting ourselves in the foot constantly because i think we are frustrated.

you know, if we sometimes sell our values down the street so to speak, just to get something done positive and actually get enough power, enough votes to get something through, that person is a traitor and the hard-line, they are so fractured that they are never going to get to parts of any of the three parts of government. it's just not going to happen. >> guest: it's a great question because one of the real stories of 2013 is going to be the disarray within the republican party especially within the house republican caucus. they are only one part of government and in a recent interview with "the wall street journal" speaker boehner had a great quote. he said i need this job like you need a hole in the head. that reflects her boehner and a lot of republicans are. they want to get entitlement reform but they are dealing with a liberal president, liberal

senate so they are very limited on what they can do. they're going to try to move forward but it will be incremental. a lot of conservatives like yourself -- >> host: c-span democrat as this was a likely that the republican party will implode in the next few months, debt ceiling and all? >> guest: i think the parties going to sir but there may be minor -- on the debt ceiling. a lot of problem -- say we should push for many cuts as a part of the deal on the debt ceiling but the president himself has said he's not going to negotiate it also is going to put republicans in a tough position. if they want to push in the present won't play ball they will end up satisfying the activists and not getting a deal so they will have to craft a real strategy perhaps a better strategy than they had on the clip deal. >> host: texas, independent line, robert your next. >> caller: yeah, we are not seeing a republic president for

another 11 or 12 years. obama has to finish out his term and hillary is going to take another eight years. rubio will help for the republicans but he is cuban and the latinos are not going to go for mexicans and latinos. you have to remember the cubans had kennedy and the russians and all that. the latinos will not follow you as they would a real latino. >> host: what was your first about speaker boehner? >> caller: he needs to have a republican presidents to have any help. >> guest: it's a very fair point. one of the real problems right t right now is in the republican party and even within the conservative movement. so many people were banking on mitt romney winning the presidential election and so much of what we have seen on plan b in the house on the fiscal cliff and senate and the house is a reaction of not

having the power everyone expected or hoped for coming out of the 2012 election so there's a real question on what is moving forward. your question about hispanic vote is an interesting one because beyond all these fiscal issues immigration is likely to bubble up in 2013 is a major issue. where republicans going to go on that? where for instance the senator revealed going to stand? these are all questions that are in the air and there was no answer right now. >> host: in cat command morris rogers introduced a vote on speaker boehner she mentioned three pieces of legislation. one of them was immigration reform. what did you make of that? >> guest: cathy mcmorris-rodgers was selected number four in the house gop. that was the position boehner had in the 1990s under newt gingrich and when cathy mcmorris doesn't say anything that john boehner would have said, that means a lot of republicans especially the leadership level or cognitive that they have to do something

to expand the party, to reach out to new voters and new demographics and immigration reform is a part of that. i think they near and other republican leaders want to work together to stop some the infighting on immigration but it's in the agenda. >> host: burma you are next from nebraska, democratic caller. >> caller: thank you. what i would like to say about boehner is, he and cancer are not doing the will of the people of america. from what i see -- as alec, and the koch brothers. boehner's job is not hard at all. all you have to do is work for the people of america, him and cantor. none other republican jobs are hard. if they would only do the work for the people of america and not for groups like, like i said, alec.

>> host: okay burma, we herger point. >> guest: i think house republicans readers would argue that there is a tool or special interest. they have a belief in small government and a belief in lower taxes so that may crisscross with some interest groups but i think what you're really going to see is speaker boehner and leader cantor grapple with the small power in washington to get something to happen. publicans didn't want any tax rates to go up. he ended up agreeing that some would go up between 400, 450,000 of the candidate they will have to compromise. the question now is where is the compromise on affair issues and where are they going to work to get something than? i doubt it will stay on the sidelines espousing conservative dogma. i think they want to get the work done but they also want to win that battle. >> host: explain how boehner had a plan b. he couldn't get his own party behind.

that is not waiting. they used to vote in lockstep, no more. >> guest: plan b was a disaster for the speaker. he wanted a strategy for the fiscal cliff. plan b was about studying -- setting the threshold of certain level and having some kind of consensus ultimately on rates but tayner to bring the senate fiscal cliff deal that mitch mcconnell crafted with vice president biden. boehner brought it to the house and brought it to the floor and he got it through with them a credit support. some republicans are critical that he didn't have enough republican votes but boehner was able to get it through the house relatively on time around the deadline and that is a political -- >> host: colleen and rutherford new jersey, republican part -- caller. >> caller: the end-all do well was when governor christie one out there and spoke out and said they didn't return phonecalls and i've been calling banners

office all morning. when governor christie comes out on new years saying you were in trouble. he didn't return his phonecalls, but peter king on the house floor, there was a lot of a fuhrer over that sandy bill but secondly, boehner and the leadership which was voted in 2010, that got a lot of folks fascinated. let's not make the agenda about the republicans. we are falling into the trap of the left-wing media. the agenda is about obama and the senate. it's not about us little republicans. we should not fall into the trap, like we don't know what we are doing. we need to start putting the agenda on them. they need to give us the agenda.

>> guest: i think your anecdote about a sandy bill in the sandy photos and interesting london i think it reflects a lot about how speaker boehner operates within the house. for example when the fiscal cliff -- fiscal cliff deal came over was a tough vote for republicans. what i heard is boehner pulled the sandy relief bill from the floor because he didn't want to force republicans to vote on the spending package so close to set a deal that they didn't like. you cannot with the policies but that seemed to be boehner's i did. after he heard from congressman peter king of new york and other about the uproar about the sandy relief will being pulled from the floor he met with peter king the next day at 3:00 and ultimately decided to bring it back to the floor to have an agreement. that shows how boehner works. he's trying to get his give his conference room on a tough vote and at the end of the day he worked with peter king and others to help them get what they wanted. >> host: $51 billion, they

voted before they left on 9 billion of the 60 billion-dollar package and there is $51 billion left when they come back. that's up when i come back next week. does he have about? >> guest: i think you will see a lot of republicans going line by line separating what they consider to be stimulus or necessary spending and what needs to happen with sandy relief. that is the cause they will champion when they get back, making shirt and make an argument that it isn't all perhaps necessary and what is necessary and how can we explain it better? >> host: it will be amended before the senate? of those positions are taken out does it pass? >> guest: there will be of levy brutal political fight. a lot of members from the northeast in the senate and the house will not like the package being touched all the republicans are saying they are going to put his stick in the mud and make a stand. were not going to let all spending go through. >> host: speaker boehner stuck with representative cantor or

can boehner dump cantor? >> guest: i don't think you're going to see speaker boehner dump cantor. i don't think they are the best of friends but they have a close professional relationship. this is a conference that needs the leadership to be working together. in the past there has been discussion of the regard between boehner and cantor but moving forward, there continues to be in the political corner working together as a better solution. the most important thing to watch is that cantor isn't saying much published in -- publicly and at least there's doing that i doubt you will hear about cantor working gets boehner. >> host: gilbert go kentucky, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. it seems to me that cantor goes behind speaker boehner's back.

[inaudible] there is a lot of sacred stuff going around in the republican party. they need to be more united and they are not. the american people elected the same people over and over and over. until that stops i don't know how americans are going to move forward. another comment i wanted to make too is that, talking about the left-wing media, that is correct. there is the hannity show -- it doesn't help. >> host: robert costa his comment that there is back and forth behind the scenes that we don't know but? >> guest: the 2012 election house republicans lost a lot of seats but there was no rebellion

within the caucus in the internal leadership to break with cantor, boehner or mccarthy, the top three. the only real race he saw was for conference chairman cathy mcmorris-rodgers represented from washington who ran against tom price a representative from georgia for the number four spot. cathy mcmorris-rodgers beat out prices of former chairman of the republican study committee a conservative group in the house so you saw that level the fourth ranking level some fighting. boehner kantian mccarthy seemed pretty safe. when i talk to members one-on-one watai senses they might have a lot of disagreements with certain decisions with which boehner and cantor are doing but there was no one better to step up. brian for example is very popular with conservative members but ryan is not showing any interest in challenging boehner or mccarthy. really it's only a ryan like figure who could challenge boehner. >> host: jem has this to say about the sandy relief bill. once again we have bill that

would have passed easily if it did nasa much junk in it. jim in el paso texas, democratic caller you are up next. >> caller: i would like to ask your guests and i've seen him on several programs. i am retired and watch a lot of political programs. i believe that there is no way we are going to go -- we are not going to raise the debt ceiling. the real question to me is why while the republicans offered specific spending cuts? are they worried about their political careers or is there something else? and one last thing, there are three factions of our country, inside the beltway, cable news and then there's the average american and i will say i'm above average, that doesn't stay engaged at all. how does --

what i'm really saying is the republican party is not seeing the forest for the trees, the force being american people and the trees being the infighting in that regard. thank you. >> guest: it's a great point. the republican the republican party in the run-up to the 2010 election, you saw the pledge to america. use all this talk of reconnecting to the american people in two and two years later they lost seats in the house and didn't win the presidency is that this is the time for rethinking. i think the debt ceiling perhaps more than the fiscal cliff is a way for republicans to make cuts in specific ways and talk about specific cuts but the real question is they have are devoted for the ryan budget in the past. that had entitlement reform. moving forward will they continue to talk about entitlement reform with regards to medicare, medicaid and social security? i think you will see republicans try to make some kind of deal on cuts and see where the president is willing to go. this is part of the politics. from what i hear from my

reporting, until they feel the president harry reid will go the distance and negotiate from that level. >> host: tommy you are next on the republican line from portsmouth rhode island. >> caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. my question is, i went from the democratic party to the republican party in 2007. i got my children involved in local campaigning and so forth. so for boehner to really succeed, a lot of people like me that came up in the conservative -- for fiscal issues, both parties are not really taking care of business. to bring more people in, i have found that i was really alienated when i spend a lot of time campaigning for ron paul and the way the party just

totally ignored him. it might even make me go back to being an independent and not either party. so just bringing in more people underneath the tent. what do you think it will take for boehner -- [inaudible] >> guest: it's a great question. one of the most important things to remember about taynor is boehner lost his conference seat as chairman of the education committee. it was only in 2006 when tom delay was on the boehner ascended again to be leader of the republican party. he led the party until 20 -- from 2010 until now kept the house for two elections. as much as there is a lot of grumbling about the inner's leadership a lot of republicans who have been in the house for a long time feel the boehner is able to stay in power and bring the party back to power and they applaud that. the ron paul question is an interestiinteresti ng one. ron paul is out of congress and

the candidate is no longer there but they there are people who watch them in the house. he is a ron paul acolyte. he would fall under that tradition. justin hall from michigan, sophomore. both amash and thomas massey played a a secret vote in a secret that secret that an nec ron paul's sun center rand paul in the senate and elected in 2010. he is continuing to ron the ron paul movement in many ways. is now on the senate relations committee and you'll hear him talk about the realm paul idea of foreign policy and less foreign aid and more conservative ideas about where to spend money and red hat troops. i think you'll you're more that in the years to come. >> host: apology, sorry. coughing attack here. mitch mcconnell, is rolled? >> guest: mitch mcconnell has a central role. mitch mcconnell is doing a lot because mitch mcconnell was the one when there was truly an impasse in the fiscal cliff negotiation he was the one who

is able to call vice president biden and cut a deal. that says a lot about his political ability. he's able to reach out to the white house and make a deal happen. he will be the one to watch because of the house continues to be a little bit of a mess, no one knows how to protect where the house will go on on the debt ceiling, mitch mcconnell will get sent republicans to work together. >> host: marie is next and turner spurred north carolina, republican caller. >> caller: good morning. can you hear me? >> guest: yes. >> caller: okay, i just wanted to make a comment in support of john boehner. this is coming from someone who has, i have just never been in the down and 30 part of politics. one thing i've observed is mr. boehner was really committed to his party.

he did not twist their arms or do many things that i think are demeaning. politicians will do whatever it takes to get their party members to march behind him, you know whatever the outcome is going to be. he does hold his ground on that and the former of the last speaker made remarks that mr. boehner, that he didn't support -- [inaudible] pelosi had that quality, that she could keep her members behind her. i know most parties, they like sausage making and all that and

probably not a lot of nice things happen. some of the parties, some parties can secure whatever is going on the background. i just admire that quality in someone who respects their -- >> guest: the boehner style is one i really enjoyed covering in the last few years because republicans have out loud earmarks. that banned any kind of earmarks as far as the votes in the house republicans congress. where does this leave speaker boehner? he now has now has to that as members make an argument and that is all he can do is make an argument. he has nothing to offer except perhaps subcommittee chairmanship for that kind of thing which isn't much from any member. you see boehner using his soft touch, bringing its members close and tried to build relationships. he doesn't try to pressure them to heart. that is what we have seen from

boehner and it has been both a blessing and a curse for him because some big votes he doesn't have that hammer like tom delay the republican leader before boehner and trying to whip up republican caucus together but he is engendered a warm friendship with many members and i think that is part of why he stays in power. >> host: lion, independent collar. >> caller: good morning c-span. thank you c-span. the tea party has become -- and that is causing a lot of problems with the average american. we can see it and what they don't realize is they'll do anything for money. it's quite evident in both hardees but the republican party shows more of an interest in whatever it takes to get it done the so-called lobbyists or big money, we have become a nation

of individuals who did not care about the earth -- [inaudible] thanks for c-span. >> guest: i think your question about race that would disagree it. i don't think the republican party is racist and i would disagree with most of your other points but i think your frustration is reflective of what they heard when i was on the campaign trail in 2012, that washington isn't working for people who are out there in america. it's only obsessed with a small town town of lobbyists and law may curse. i think that's a fair concern to have but to make such of her road generalization about any party that they think is a tad unfair. >> host: mark is next, democratic caller, stone mountain georgia. >> caller: good morning. hi. i have a question about boehner and the party of no. where is he trying to go with this and for the last caller

about ron paul, crystal from your magazine called the canon and ron paul -- and ron paul talking about the golden rule as far as policies, what do you guys want them to to achieve and 2016 besides war with iran, you know? what do you guys plan to do and i want to get your reaction to try to understand. >> guest: bill crystal is the editor of "the weekly standard" and that's another conservative journal of opinion. i work for the "national review" and i'm there reporter for national review. the ron paul question again is a very fair one to raise. i think the presence of people like thomas massey and brad pollin the senate, the ron paul movement, i was there at the sunbelt when they had their last rally and it seemed like the

movement was ending but that libertarian streak of the republican party is going to continue. use even house primaries across the country. perhaps the tea party reasserts and reevaluates words going to go in 2013. the ron paul movement has built that to many state parties with many local party so i think you will continue to see candidates rise who were inspired by ron paul in the public arena. >> host: john, you are next. michigan, independent collar. >> caller: hello. >> host: heidt john you are on the air. >> caller: obviously we have a stalemate between republicans and democrats. boehner's biggest job right now would be to further new deals and i can think of the word. to make deals happen, stop the stalemate and the line in the sand. i'm really sick of hearing about social security as an entitlement. we paid for that. i have easily agreed that

welfare is an entitlement. 90% of what the feds spend wouldn't be spent if we follow the constitution and did for the majority to people most of the time and not just corporate benefit. we would be better off. i think boehner's biggest job is to broker deals to make them happen. >> guest: it's it is pretty hard to broker deals. john boehner when in front of his conference and he was trying to get some conservative support and john boehner spent the last couple of years trying to craft a grand bargain on the debt with president obama. he went before house republicans said i have not been able to make a deal with the president so from now on the 113th congress as they move forward and not going to have any more private closed-door meetings with the president and not going to huddle with the president one-on-one without talking with house republicans. that is over.

at the same time he think boehner even though he is giving up on the private negotiations will take calls from the president that he will have to work more closely with house republicans. he is going to have to think about where is my conference and are they going to be with me? r. mccarthy and paul ran going to be with me? there are a lot of other factors that and are has to consider. >> we are leaving the last few minutes of "washington journal." you can watch it live every morning started at 7:00 eastern on c-span. live coverage now from richard nixon's foundation event marking former president nixon's 100th birthday. over the next hour speakers are scheduled and include henry kissinger. >> it's a rare published to hear from our next speaker fred malek. is calling fred up duest furnace

i'm a that wasn't completed or something like that. it's nice to be able to be out front. the room is filled tonight with a number of people who really will are the best of and the brightest in this administration. i continue to be amazed at when nixon people get together it's like they were never apart. the camaraderie, the friendship, the warmth surrounding this group is something that is very special and something i know that all of you cherish. many of you when you are asked to come and join the nixon administration to join in a cause bigger and better than yourselves probably heard from fred malek. fred started as a recruiter and he has agreed to lead the nixon legacy campaign. though the campaign is just being announced, i must give a little bit of a leak here. here. we have arty secured and raised over $4.5 million for this effort. [applause]

in no small part from the contribution of fred and marlene and the generous gift that they may. without her there do, fred malek. [applause] >> can you remember when we used to quake in their boots when hinckley would call? [laughter] he is the only guy who doesn't look the same. you don't have any hair. the rest of us have not aged a bit. what a privileged is to be here tonight. what a great turnout. what a great turnout. [applause] it's a privilege not only

because we celebrate the 100th birthday of our 37th president, richard nixon, but it's also because we are in the presence of the nixon family. but to me, so much is because i am standing before some of the best friends that a man or a woman could possibly have in life. friends who have endured over four decades and no one could ask for more than the kind of enduring friendship and the enduring loyalty that this group represents. [applause] now, most of you here tonight are alumni of those exhilarating times. you were part of a presidency that accomplish so many great things and yes part of the presidency that was at times

exhilarating and at times debilitating. but we all knew in our hearts that we worked for a great president who had great accomplishments. you know, we were and i guess we still are in many ways, young, inexperienced. most of those like our leader, and came from at best middle-class beginnings. and we rose from that two positions we are privileged to hold in the white house and the administration. and today, we stand here secure in our belief that we worked for a great president and we accomplish some wonderful and amazing things. [applause] we have learned a great deal from our experiences.

we took much that served us so well in the four decades that followed, and never before, never before has there have been a pool of talent so great as was assembled by richard nixon. just think about this. just looking at the alumni of the nixon white house, we have the future of president of the united states. we have a future vice president of the united states. we have for future secretaries of state and you thought you were the only one. we had four. we had five united states senators. we had two governors. we had to secretaries of the treasury. we had more than five major corporate ceos. we had more than five major respected columnists and commentators. we had for national security advisers and we had three

secretaries of labor, secretarsecretar y of commerce and the secretary of transportation. what a group. [applause] but those are just the ones with the renowned titles. all of them are people of accomplishment, people of loyalty and people of commitment and that is why you are here tonight. the reason i am privileged to chair the nixon centennial campaign to raise money for this library, there are three reasons. one, think it's so important to refurbish and improve this library which is so dated and it's so important to not only did we refurbish a library, hundreds of thousands of people come but that we reached out electronically to the world. millions of people around the world with a more robust electronic presence to share the comp which meant of the 37th

president. i am also honored to do this -- well, because tricia and julie asked me. i would never say no to them. but i guess i do it even more than anything else because of my feeling of camaraderie and my feeling of family and friendship, my feeling of loyalty to the people in this room. you our family. you are people who have stood the test of time who have stood loyal to have been there when things -- and for that, for that you can't ask more for that in life. [applause] so, i accept this challenge of raising a few bucks for the nixon library with enthusiasm,

with temerity, knowing that it will be a rough ride like all these rights are but knowing i have made a lot of friends and believe me, friends, i will be knocking at your door. and it is the memories i think that we share of these experiences and accomplishments not only to bring us together tonight but i think also inspire us to want to do more, to bring the memories of this great man and the competiticompetiti on and so this great man to the world. so again, i am honored to be here. i am privileged to be here. i thank you for being my friends for four decades and i thank you for being so loyal to our 37th president over these many years. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, fred. good evening ladies and gentlemen. my name is dwight chapin. [applause] thank you. starting in 1966, there was a recurring refrain that you could hear around the nixon office. it grew during the 1968 campaign and then it grew even greater all through the years of the administration and continued into the post-presidency. that nixonian refrain was, what does buchanan think? [laughter] or a variation of that was, what does buchanan say? now admittedly some folks don't necessarily appreciate what pat's father set but were not going to address that here tonight. but think about this, what attribute, what a complement. one of the smartest men of

modern times, a man whose intellect no one questions, always wanted to know what buchanan thought. the president wanted the unfettered, common sense kind of thinking that pat offer. the president sought out, those conservative feelings that pat instinctively knew about that great silent majority that elected him president. president reagan too saw what president nixon could do first that pat's conservative views were pure, political currency of tremendous value in the presidential arena. [applause] pat once shared with a couple of us that the president was like a father to me. and now that we celebrate

richard nixon's 100th birthday, once again we get to find out what richard nixon always wanted to know. what did buchanan think? ladies and gentlemen, pat buchanan. [applause] >> thank you very much, dwight. that was quite a reception. i was wondering where all my good friends were when i was running or the reform party. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, we are here tonight to celebrate the centennial of a statesman, a profile in courage and an extraordinary man. we are all proud to have served the 37th president of the united states, richard milhouse nixon.

[applause] years ago meg greenfield of "the washington post" wrote that she belonged to what she called the nixon generation. what distinguishes us as a group she said, is that we are too young to remember time when richard nixon was not on the political scene and too old, reasonably to expect that we shall ever see one. meg greenfield was distressed about this. you know, in her thesis rings true. we are the nixon generation. we were born into and lived through what abdul called the age of nixon and what a time that was, and what a man he was. home from the war in 1946, richard nixon was elected to the 80th congress and swiftly became its most famous member. where he would exhibit early on denmark his entire life and the

tricia referenced earlier, perseverance. because he believed a disheveled ex-communist named whittaker chambers and because he distrusted an establishment icon alger hiss, congressman nixon persevered to expose the wartime treason. by 1948 he was an american hero. so popular the democratic party did not even field a candidate against them. in 1950 he captured the senate seat with the largest majority in the history of the state of california. and the same people who loved harry truman's give them hell campaign winds that mr. nixon played to rough. in the taft eisenhower battle of 1952 and internationalist, the boss with the vice presidential nominee and a man of destiny. then it was the establishment

first moved to bring him down. they hyped a phony story about a political fund alleged it was for senator nixon's personal benefit and instigated a great human cry for general eisenhower to drop him from the ticket. senator nixon's decision to defend his record and integrity in the checkers speech, though mocked by his enemies, remains the most brilliant use of television by a political figure and the 20th century. [applause] in the 1950's he redefined the vice presidency as a force of foreign-policy, braved a lynch mob in caracas and became the first vice president to travel behind the iron curtain. he confronted khrushchev's bluster in the kitchen debate.

by 1960 had no serious challenger for the nomination. and after the closest election in history, about which there hung the aroma of vote fraud in texas and illinois, he went to missouri. he went home to california to run for governor after brutal primary gaining on governor brown with the cuban missile will crisis broke his momentum. the boss went down for second defeat and looks to be out for the count. believing he had nothing to lose, he came down from his suite at the following morning to deliver to the press words that will live in infamy. as cactus jack garner said, he gave it to them with the bark on. mr. nixon was now thought to be finished. abc put together an instant

documentary entitled the political obituary of richard m. nixon. and the featured interview was with that astute political analyst, alger hiss. [laughter] i think alger went on to be an "msnbc" commentator, did he not? [laughter] [applause] brought back from the c-span rendition. as mark twain said, reports of his death were premature. moving his family to new york ,-com,-com ma richard nixon entered what he would call his wilderness years. after the goldwater rockefeller like death in 1964, with our party bitterly divided, the boss volunteered to introduce the nominee at the cow palace and did so in one of the finest

addresses he ever delivered. after he brought back contentious convict -- convention together with his introduction senator goldwater mike eurothin proceeded to declare extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. dwight chapin you introduced me was in the limousine who carried the boss away from the palace. dwight has told me what the boss said in that car about senator goldwater's speech. there is no need to whites to repeat those discouraging words. [laughter] almost all of the other big-name republicans abandon senator goldwater. the old man stood by him and traveled the nation working longer and harder for goldwater than did the senator himself. after the crushing defeat, the republican party party was reduced 2-1/2 of the democratic

party strength. 140 house seats and 32 senate seats and only 17 governors. republican party was a house divided and a house in ruins. it was an open question whether it would survive. and now began the greatest comeback in american political history. when i arrived in new york to join the boss in january 1966, his staff consisted of three people. i occupy at one desk in the office held beside his own. the second occupant of this office was rosewood's in the third, a ms. ryan, more exactly patricia ryan nixon, the future first lady of the united states. [applause] from whom i used to bum cigarettes regularly. [laughter]

the altar piece of that year was richard nixon's six-week war against what lpga called my congress. alone at the national republicans, the boss campaigned across the entire country for the party in 35 states and 80 congressional districts. in november his old prediction of the 40 seat republican gain in the house moved conservative. then after a year off traveling the world came that great campaign of 1968, the most divisive era in american history since the civil war. many of us recall that year. consider what happened. as we took off january 31 with the boss going up to new hampshire, the last day of january, the siege of caisson was at its height and the tet offensive had just begun. four weeks later governor romney quit the race. senator eugene mccarthy then

stunned the nation capturing 42% of the vote against president lyndon johnson. robert kennedy suddenly leapt into the race. march 31, the boss asked me to monitor president johnson speech on vietnam. on a car radio at laguardia airport to greet him when he arrived back from visiting julie. at the end of that speech, president johnson suddenly announced he would not run again. four days after that political earthquake, dr. martin luther king was assassinated in memphis. washington and 100 other cities exploded in riots that lasted days and required tens of thousands of troops. in early june, a week after our oregon primary victory i got a 3:00 a.m. call from our building headquarters, robert kennedy was shot in los angeles. i called the boss.

julie and david have been watching tv and already awakened him. that office for democratic party came across -- apart in chicago. and so it plans went in that dramatic and divisive year. at added sand, richard nixon was president of the united states. [applause] now consider, consider the city he came to end and the hostility he found here. the nation had been torn apart by a half a decade of assassinations and riots and campus anarchy. half a million soldiers were tied down in an endless war. the country was coming apart. richard nixon was the first president since sack retailer to take the oath of office with both houses of congress against him. the press corps was 90% hostile.

the warren court was at the peak of its power. the best and the brightest who had led us into vietnam were deserting to join their children in protest against what they suddenly discovered was quote nixon's war. as the presidential limousine came up pennsylvania avenue and after you can outgrow, it was showered with debris. ..

but now consider what he accomplished. at the end of his first term, all u.s. troops out of vietnam, headed home, every provincial south vietnam's hands. he had signed the greatest arms treaty since the washington legal agreement of the 22. salt wand and the abm treaty. he had ended the implacable hostility of the people's republic of china had endured since the korean war. in a second term, he would order strategic air lift that saved israel in the yom kippur war. [applause] israel never had a better friend

said golda mayor. in november 1972, richard nixon was rewarded with the most landslide than 49 states and 60% of the vote. he comes to the campaigns, he had led in 66 and 68, 72, a party on its deathbed in 1964 was on its way to becoming the new majority party, america's party, which it captured the presidency and win more than 40 states and for the next five presidential elections. that was the president's accomplishment. the president's memoirs begin. i was born in a house my father built while the republican party in the last third or 20th centuries was the house that you build. [applause]

and domestic policy was the first environmental president in environmental quality in apa to battle the scourge of cancer he established the national cancer institute two close the generations had professionalized military. he added the draft. he made six nominations for the supreme court. not a bad average when you consider the senate are up against. as for southern strategy, when richard nixon took the oath of office, 10% of southern schools were desegregated. when he left, 70% were desegregated. [applause] as bob dole not eulogy at yorba linda, it is the age of nixon. nixon was a dominant figure in the 40s, to these, 60s and

70s, his influence lived on into the 20th century and into the 21st. let me ask you, with a b. gerald r. ford presidential library would not therefore the honorable and good man as vice president? would there be a george h.w. bush, presidential library if richard nixon had not recognized a talented this man who had just lost his second statewide race in texas and brought it back to washington to make him chairman of the national party then ambassador to the u.n. ronald reagan, whom i served cannot of the west to launches revolution and its first national security pacer first domestic policy chief, allen and marty andersen came up for eight campaign staff and white house staff. mr. reagan's secretary of state,

george shultz and the secretary of defense cap weinberger came out of the next national security council for the nixon cabinet. ronald reagan chose chief justice of the united states william rehnquist was elevated to the supreme court or richard nixon henryk's choice as chairman of the federal reserve, alan greenspan was for domestic policy research court nader in new york in 1968. the maestro was a fine researcher, too. in 1996, when bob dole was the leading candidate for the republican nomination, he was most clearly being pursued by two former members of nixon's white house staff, lamar alexander was one. i forget the other guys. [laughter] this brings back a memory about

1992 election after i've lost 10 straight primaries to president bush. i called the old man in saddle river and when he came on the line, i say 10 for 10, not that, hey, sir? president nixon promised and said buchanan community of extremist they know with a sense of humor. [laughter] come on now to bring shelley with you. in 2001, george w. bush is the secretary of defense the man that richard nixon to head of lbj's poverty program and to monitor wage and price controls, to plum assignments for a republican star, donald rumsfeld and president nixon named him ambassador to nato. the president did have these idiosyncrasies and i'll just tell one story about that. for nine-year say president

briefing spoke, no questions and answers on every result on the press conference. i did that for years and will have about 30 questions in the book about 100 to 200 word answers, call them in. so i also, after we do that, i would send the president mmo in the late afternoon of this press conference that had 10 or 12 questions. is that these are the most likely questions they believe the overseas. and it than that to him. after one press conference coming in not them a lot of the perk and we have predict that every single question. so i waited for the call. he always called me at night after something like this. he said judiciary usual excellent job. i notice he predicted every single question they would ask. i said yes, sir, we did. that's very good. but there were other questions in a briefing that they did not

ask. next time leave those out. [laughter] however, wendell holmes once observed it is required to demand that he shared the action and passion of this time at peril of being judged not to have lived. richard nixon shared the action and passion of his time and again and again and again came back from wending and defeat. after he left the white house, he would write nine books on foreign policy on the great man he had no. and there were many. for only franklin roosevelt equaled richard nixon having been on-site presidential ticket. at the centennial approach, phone calls started coming in to me and other folks from the

springer deal jackal attack, asking what is your task of watergate? my only regret is your man is not here tonight so i can tell him my thoughts on this old tormentors. in the words that make your way "the great gatsby," they were a rock crowd, sir, you're worse the whole bunch put together. nixon now more than ever. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> pad, thank you very much for those eloquent words. he ran through history we experienced during that timeframe. unbelievable. ladies and gentlemen, i have a distinct honor of introducing a man that needs no introduction. this man is known and respected worldwide. hope it will come dr. henry kissinger. [applause]

>> i've been asked to propose a toast and make a few remarks. let me begin by saying that i thought it never live to see the day when pat buchanan would say the things about the nixon foreign policy -- [laughter] that i have two conversions. it's not over.

it was -- it's a good way to begin explaining the historic achievement of richard nixon. when richard nixon took his oath of office, 550,000 americans were engaged in combat. america had no relations with china. the soviet union had just invaded and occupied czechoslovakia. no negotiations for the soviet union were going on. middle east diplomacy was totally stanley and the major country to the middle east had broken relations with the united

states. when richard nixon left office, the war in the town had been terminated. a permanent dialogue with china had begun, sweeping negotiations on the nuclear issues being undertaken with the soviet union. richard nixon was the first president to visit eastern europe, choosing in fact the day the president was supposed to be there and they had to paint over the signs to welcome richard nixon. he had conducted a diplomacy in

the middle east that removed soviet military power from egypt , brought about a diplomatic change and started agreements, one of which was area survived until the turmoil, not the apartment irrelevant, which were thick he carried out. one can link all of these two treatments. i would say the fundamental effort wasted and the american occupation between extremes of commitment and extreme withdraw to create a permanent pattern in

which foreign policy could he understood. he approached foreign policy from the point of view of national interest and permanent values and maintains those under the most difficult circumstances imagine the president who blockades vietnam two weeks before he was supposed to visit the soviet union. five months before a national election and then goes to moscow anyway and sends the most nuclear arms agreement that have existed, whose numbers no matter

how much remain the basic numbers of american strategy for the next 30 years. this was his underlying achievement and he brought this about because he reflects that the qualities that make a great theater. courage and vision. you need courage, unique character because the key decisions are now. do you need courage to be willing to walk a lonely path? innumerable locations. eyewitness richard nixon making

decisions against the advice, sometimes the maturity of the people around him and certainly in the face of enormous media opposition. he would say you pay as much of a price for doing something halfway as for doing it completely, so you might as well do it right. that was the richard nixon who set a standard of foreign policy vision and hunt the carriage in the midst of great crisis to

hold fast to visions he had developed, but he also knew that piece has two elements. it has to have a balance of power it has to be a central justice. he worked on both and he created a sense of international policies, which may survived to this day. it was my privilege to have been permitted to work with. 40 years ago on this precise

day, i sent him a keeper that the vietnamese had accepted what was basically the outline of its elites the year before. he replied, if they stick with ice, and this will be the happiest birthday in my life. so it is my honor to propose a toast to richard nixon, patriot, president and above all, peacemaker. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you, dr. kissinger for your eloquence and serving this great centennial dinner tonight. we are honored that you are here and that you spoke. thank you a mystery. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the youngest daughter of president mrs. nixon, julie isenhour. [applause] >> one of the most popular items at the nixon library is a mug emblazoned with the words, what would nixon do? tonight i'm going to tweet the slogan a little bit and ask, what would nixon say?

i'm fairly certain that if my father with us tonight, he was the to all of you, thank you. thank you common men and women of the nixon administration for serving in the most challenging times imaginable and do any job superbly and brilliantly. so many achievements in five and a half years. any misstate thank you to the bigger nixon family, the friends and supporters have come here tonight to celebrate. sometimes i'm asked whether the site from a family to defend my father during the embattled moments in the white house and my response is simple. he was the best father in the world. he loved his country and he made us proud. happy birthday. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] ♪ >> please stand as we sing god less america. ♪ while the storm caused rather, all across the sea ♪

let us all be grateful for a land so fair, as we raise our voice is, in this solemn world. ♪ i guess you already know the next part. god bless america, land that i love. and beside her, and guide her, through the night -- from the

mountains, to the prairies, to the americans unchained. god bless america, my home sweet home. ♪ let's sing it again. ♪ god bless america, land that i love. ♪ stand beside her, and guide her through the night with a light from above. ♪ from the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans, white with foam. ♪ god bless america, my home sweet

home. be smart god bless america, my home sweet home. ♪ ♪ [applause] >> thank you, robbie. ladies and gentlemen, please visit us in yorba linda, california at the richard nixon presidential library birthplace rent every 15 will of been a spectacular exhibit, the richard nixon centennial visit. thank you for coming and good

night. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i think that collect urbanization of the minds of americans fathers is particularly dangerous because if they say so often about, they were not a collective unit and presenting them as such tends to dramatically oversimplified the politics of the founding generation and it comes to be used as a big battering ram to beat people over the head with advice and i think are both hysterically coherent and unfound.

>> next, a form on the relationship about state and federal marijuana laws. colorado washed state recently glazed recreational use of marijuana, but that continues to be a vehicle under federal law. at the brookings institution, this is an hour and a half. >> welcome, everybody. thank you for coming. my name is jonathan rauch. it's very good of you to come on a cold day in so much else is going on in washington. some of you may have heard the two states have legalized marijuana. the new smith trickled to out to washington and colorado did this in november. there has been discussion of the

policy implications of that. today we put your head than ours in different space. try to think about the power implications of this. i am a fan of short introductions, the thank you's and bias and not much else. i make a site exception today. after thinking first of course all of you come the second our panelists, a true team of whom came from out west to be here today. third, our partner in organizing this session, the washington office on latin america and not least the donors to meet this session possible, including peter lewis, to whom were very grateful. the reason this is, we think, a very good moment to put this dialogue on a separate track is that we are in a period of ferment and federalism.

that is state federal relations, the likes of which i would argue we have not seen perhaps since the new deal. we've got a number of hot issues raising fundamental questions about being waged not only about what the right decision should be, but also about who gets to decide, lucas to make a decision. immigration is one of those. or the federal government is asserting the state needs to follow the fed's policy and it had a mixed upcoming supreme court but so far. another is the defensive mortgage-backed, gay marriage. before the supreme court this term. a third is obamacare, with the states refuse to follow the federal policy ensued for the right to do that and won a mixed voting from the supreme court. the midst of all this community supreme court, which is itself

very much in flux. everybody, not. decent seats in the front. don't be shy. the supreme court is very much in flux in the area isn't huddled in a way it is not bad for a very long time. in the midst of all of that, as if that weren't enough, talk about being a cat among the pigeons to states, legalize marijuana. this is within any of the previous policies a direct confrontation with federal policy. they did a moreover by referendum, lopsided votes in the public. now a parameter for our discussion is none of these comments are rehearsed, so i don't know what people will say. if it were probably all going to agree to federal policy is a matter of law supreme here. i don't think that's a question. what is in question is what is ice for the federal government to do in the situation and what is life for the states to do

because more will consider marijuana and what is this for congress and the supreme court were ultimately a lot of this is going to play out. so we want to talk about mr. rather than mock him and want to talk about power rather than pot. there is plenty of pot in we want to talk to the guy was going to happen in the next few months in key decisions will be made of those are going to ricochet to the other states in congress and the courts. to guide us to the fund, we have a panel of just some remarkable expert. i'll introduce them in alphabetical order in reverse speaking order. troy eid is a bully with the denver office of greenberg charlie, and international law firm. he joins us from denver, for which we're grateful. if the united states attorney for the district of colorado for 2006 to may 2009. he's a former member of the

attorney general advisory committee of the narcotics and drug trafficking subcommittee. he's an adjunct to fester at the university of colorado school of law and not the material he has been honored for distinguished public service for the drug enforcement administration and the federal bureau investigation and secret service. he's going to help us understand one force an option in how to balance his power equation to get it right. michael greve next to him as a professor at george mason university school of law and a visiting scholar at the american enterprise institute. the cofounder and former direct or the center for individual rights, which the public interest law firm perhaps most on point today is in my view probably the country single most creative and thin nonstick speaker on state federal relations with the coconut subject from 1989 called real

federalism but why it matters, how it could have been a very important book on the same subject published just last year called the upside down constitution. finally, angela hawkins to my immediate left is associate professor of economics and policy analysis at pepperdine university. she comes with all the the way from california on the redeye. thank you for that. she studied at the rant graduate school of her research interests focus on drugs, crime, corruption. we have seats in the front, all you guys. at least four if you count. come on out and join us. angela loved the statewide cost benefit analysis of the california's drug said an initiative. she is co-author to relevant books, drugs and drug policy, what everyone needs to know published by oxford and very much on point marijuana legalization, what everyone

needs to know. she will help us understand to policy implications of what is happening. our panelists will talk for 10 minutes each, say what they want to say it will probably then go straight to questions, though perhaps with a bit of dialogue along the way. angela, do it to kick it off? >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. what i think about implications of colorado and washington and marijuana legalization, it's important to distinguish from other drugs. the ideological track we find ourselves so quickly is different. it is a much smaller second policy reform and legalizing drugs would be. under the last generation, a third of americans have lived in states another say fun for us when it's been so lax when we ask surveys with you that the state to decriminalize the

service people don't know. so in terms of the picture is much smaller than if we considered legalizing any of the harder drugs. so it's a much more gentle nudge in that direction. in terms of marijuana legalization, with the c-section two matters and unfortunate in this case, marijuana legalization on the books and colorado and washington through an initiative. but it doesn't allow for a single letter change once we figure out how the world works for the causation. i think someone asking for directions and remarks. if you want to go there, i wouldn't start here. so we have little room in a positive direction were operating an astonishing information vacuum because no other jurisdiction in the world has legalized marijuana.

so uncharted territory will not be as quick as we like and washington. so if i really want is a policy analyst to study a book and see the in the last and his policy its policy on the books. but that's what we have a plethora. if the experiment in washington colorado, the? streaming will learn a great deal that we don't know now. we still have speculation. but no importance that such is what happens to drug is suddenly legalize. to receive germanic increases? and if there is a dramatic increase, typically their semantic changes around the policy and no matter which implement, thanks. he was only settled down. are we going to have the

patience to wait and see what happens when it shakes out? was going to happen to dependency in the states into problem is? is the age of initiation chain? arc is going to start earlier? are they going to use margaret's could happen to those children? was going to have been too drunk driving? was going to happen to drunk driving? what will happen to be our admissions? for criminal behavior change, especially in retail stores, what will happen in those neighborhoods? more important than outcome of what is the relationship between marijuana and are most dangerous drug at all, alcohol. many think differently about marijuana legalization to an increase in alcohol use and if marijuana legalization went to decrease in alcohol use and we don't know. were just guessing out. if we use them together, this is

a different universe than a fungus treated out for the other. or just guessing out with a magnitude of these relationships in the search of the consequentialist social well-being overall following a major reform the base. to ensure the federal government will be considered these outcomes, and the experiments will learn about these issues and long island information will be closed. i'm really frustrated by lack of knowledge and making marijuana policy in the dark, i would like to see these experiments be given a chance to at least play out well enough for us to learn. it's easy to undo an experiment in two states than in many states and other states since this is language of experimentation. other washington colorado at the risk of the country.

colorado and washington become the white house for the other states. it does not seem reasonable to expect federal government to allow colorado to criticism that profoundly affects the other states. the price of federal acquiescence. when it comes to legal marijuana affect gene other states, inmates become mostly read about the kid -- [inaudible] but it's equally important across the lands. people know the power coming in for the curious and attracts more and so this is going to be extremely influential in shaping how to generate public regards the legalization because that's the price of their meeting. especially if and when any matter to the subjects of the stories include children.

the federal government might want to make a show some effort for promotion, it is to be adjusted towards trying to make it salty promotion. if they make a good-faith effort of tourism and happens anyway, they can save the hard thing to do. if they don't get involved, it looks as though they're condoning it. the movement in the direction of across state lines for lan port. you might expect to see in effect a ban promoting out-of-state use or nonresident use. either people coming, we don't care how big you are or what they were complying with their seasonals, were coming to get

you. they might want to make this prioritizing important issues. i'm bothering to do restraint on their promoters. the federal response with colorado and washington state. the other states are considering their own marijuana reform. what about these things? massachusetts, california, oregon, nevada, maine. the question is no longer if they legalized. the question is not ask him about mine. it's compelling evidence to suggest of the legalized in short order so experimentation of multiple experience, much harder to turn around and think about how to handle it. both versions of those files look like and how did they influence the federal response

is now. don't think about how advocacy groups responsible for dropping these initiatives, don't think they don't pay attention. the federal government is going to have a much harder time for teen legalization in colorado than in washington. why? because the colorado initiative is much easier to crack down on legalization with a strong regulation. so the easiest way to the glass marijuana if you want to get the federal government off your back is to simply repeal marijuana laws and its own regulations in place. it's a perverse situation. they really perverse situation. a federal response could stimulate more versions of marijuana legalization with even fewer protections for the first of people we care about, like her children.

on the other hand, federal agencies could use the decision to shape the markets in a way that offers more protection. they could easily have enforcement, make sure they go to the target businesses advertising our minimum price and the other things that keep out of the progress. there's a lot to like about marijuana. will be fascinating to see with your doctor may to take place. so for the federal government has given little indication of how to supersede this justice and of course the president's interview on tv. buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride. >> thank you. just a few clarifying points. it may be worth noting that the underground issue is also federal law prohibits marijuana, the feds do not have manpower to

enforce that accepted a high level. is that correct? >> this is why most part deregulated regimes in colorado -- and colorado -- [inaudible] how do you have the manpower to do that? if you have a limited number for how you can set up a shop that is only selling marijuana products like in washington state, it's easy to figure out a new sense of a couple hundred letters in your desk. they go after the landlord. it's so much easier than in the colorado version is much more challenging. >> said the next thing they could do is repeal and safe you crack down in the regulatory

system, will legalize it that a regulatory system and do what you can. >> i think some of the initial a rebellious by nature. marijuana users who describe themselves as becoming legal. so what there is is an aggressive response in you are going to see much more aggressive version that are just repeal. >> what we see here since him is is the breakdown of a federal state fund for such partnership in which the feds rely heavily on the states, which leads us to michael greve who look of this broader context into what we see unfold here. >> i'm against partnerships and i'll explain why. there is something along the following lines that angela alluded to this.

this signals the resilience and research of american federalism because states have preferences here. there's a reason to distrust the local process. so that states experiment. i don't think that's necessarily wrong, but in the spirit of the panel complex if i a few quick points. the first run of space. it's a perennial problem of american federalism help to stabilize the experimentation compartmentalize competition oblong state lines in the reason is always the same. the spillovers just kill you. under the current regimes federalism experimentation can take place only to the defense to enforce the laws are somewhat problematic. you won't be able to contain the flow of marijuana into states that don't want it.

as a practical matter, angela knows much more about that than i do, but i know you do so at the constitutional matter because it's just another article of commerce states can't then imported. you can situation into federal law along the lines. into any state for delivery or use of marijuana in violation of the laws thereof is prohibited. i didn't make that up. that is section two of the 21st amendment, dealing with flickr and let those things try to do is to allow states that don't want booze and their status to remain dry and you need something like that. you see something along the same lens assembly line with respect to gay marriage.

but donna tracy was compartmentalize among stateline said that isn't going so well at either. you have two s. state experimentation in the circumstances is always, but, are you really favor of a decentralized solution or is it a strategy towards your favorite solution? we don't ask that question often enough, but maybe one of these days we will. my second point compared pointer much more important to me. there's a preoccupation in the land with the question of the brett of federal powers. how hard is federal power extend under the enumerated power? how far does the commerce clause reach with respect to criminalizing possession? how is of course the question in the ratio is i am now going to reargue that were even try

because my question is about the death of the federal power or madison called the national operation of federal power. assuming congress has the power, in what form can't exercise that power and act on states? it's a hugely important question, especially the enumerated powers reach as far as they do today. so upon me two minutes, ma one-to-one on the basic constitutional structure. the first basic rule in jonathan alluded to this is that within this enumerated power congress can preempt state any day once because federal law trumps any and all state laws. that is the basic order of the supremacy clause and that's implicated but not in a very interesting way. state laws may provide a safe harbor against prosecution, but not of course immunity against federal blog. iraq has a staple into the upset

effect that seems to to suggest the opposite, but i think that's no good end this playground. that's the first preposition of preemption. the second proposition is that the federal preemption and supremacy must take the form of a prohibition. that is to say direct regulation of private conduct don't smoke dope or as out-of-state conduct as an example. no state shall anywhere near the rate housing services of airline carriers. that's preemption. that's a prohibition. enriched supreme court put it the federal government may not commandeer states. that is say it while i'm not clause. that york versus united states

and cannot compel state officers to execute federal laws. that's obvious implication that despite her the most immediate implication is that no state has to criminalize marijuana just because the feds do. no state has to enforce federal laws are prohibition so does she chorus of course they're still required to do so. now it turns out that sounds trivial, but i think it tastes itself out in hugely important contexts in their own way in the marijuana context. so here's an example. one of these days, the supreme court will decide whether it wants to grant the second go around of a case called bond versus united states. the rousseau for marital dispute, wife's beard a chemical on a doorknob in the car door of

her rival. this resulted in a number. the woman was prosecuted by state officials in pennsylvania under a federal law that it omits the chemical weapons convention. it's called on versus united states. the question in this case is that if ephedra is even constitutional. i don't think so, but that the circuit city has. even while saying yes, all of the judges said what do you people there at the local level inc. when you enforce these kinds of federal laws? you don't have to. the reason why this matters is the heritage foundation has had over criminalization workgroup for the past 15, 20 years and it's never gone anywhere. but it might go some place if local officials could stop themselves from cooperating with the feds in enforcing these

ludicrous federal laws. many of them would turn into the press releases that they deserve to be. and if they stop doing so here, that will be progress to my mind. now there's a much bigger problem are much bigger implication here that comes to that if you ask yourself, why is it the united this constitution has this regime, preemption yes, no. there is a descendent of the prints case that addresses the question that may just inspire convergences prior south along the following lines. though, many federal systems in the world rely on commandeering on the execution of federal orders by state officials any prominently mentioned the european union. they do so said justice breyer because it's more fatuous and friendly because it the feds must enforce our laws, you get centralization and the federal government will send swarms of

officers and a bit enforcement for gtd silicate precise date the result meant to forestall. there are answers to these questions about anything to you you for free. the first thing is that commandeering partnership, intergovernmental cooperation destroys responsibility and accountability. look at the e.u. to the e.u. destroy greece or decrease destroy the e.u.? is probably does, but you can't tell them they'll blame each other. the founders didn't need the e.u. to save his dangerous. all this arises for intergovernmental cooperation and common during. the founders didn't need the e.u. because they have the example comintern for them, the articles of confederation. there is a constitution that prohibits this and makes it very, very difficult in any event.

the second objection to justice breyer or rather the objection to a second party is feds want to send sworn off officers. let them try. it seems already suggested, they can't enable and if they do, they will have to pay the fiscal and critical praise. so in a weird way, it would be great if we have fbi agents in santa clara breaking down the doors of pot smokers. i will. i will tell people more but the federal government than 50 papers from the cato institute. [laughter] >> one minus point and then i will end. this is a force of the anti-commandeering rule mentioned that the a button that is the affordable care act. it seems far removed, but it really isn't. if you look at the affordable care act, the preoccupation of months conservatives and was how far does tax power co., commerce

pirate though. but the mandate that was issued in that case is not the engine that drives the affordable care act. it is the state exchanges, but will be i hope the way it works, initially the administration and congress wanted to commandeer states to establish exchanges. then i realized that, we can't do that because there's the anti-commandeering will and will be unconstitutional. instead what it contains is the preemption were shamed, which says the states have a choice. either establish an exchange under our order and in accordance with desires, or a pseudo-stroll into your state and do it for you. and i think it's great that 18 states or something like that had said, then, let go.

many of the states, by the way, have also set now to the medicaid expansion. if you want to do this, you federal government will take responsibility for the inevitable failure of these regimes if you want to build this contraption, build it on your own. ..

>> states have the enforcement clout, and i gather, although you're quite indirect and hard to read, that you're not a fan of state and federal partnership -- [laughter] a lot of -- we get that impression, so a lot of conventional wisdom here is about, well, the federal government and the states have got to work something out. it's the only way to do this, make this work going forward. if, in your view, they should not work something out, something's got to give. either the federal law does not get involved, and bar the door or the federal government really does try to enforce and hire and step in which, do you support either of those or are third? >> i have no view of the policy

implications at all. >> i'm not asking about marijuana -- >> right. >> bring it on. >> the state should do what the states do? >> absolutely. >> the feds, if they want to deal with it, can deal with it, and if not, the states called the federal government's bluff? >> yep. >> that's accountability. >> there you go. >> well, troy, very important question came up there. we'll hear a lot more about that in the next few months, spillover, how you deal with the messiness with that, and help us understand the choices that law enforcement and the obama administration thinks and how they ought to deal with it. >> well, johnson, good to be here, and i want to thank brookings and appreciate being here with angela and michael. this remind me of the story, and i'm a country lawyer from colorado, but the guy who prayed to win the lottery ticket, just wanted to win over and over again and constantly asking the

lord, you know, help me, help me, i lived a good life. i've never asked you for much, and years went by. hi never won. he said, help me, lord, i need the money. finally, the clouds part, and a voice comes down from heaven, sol, sol, meet me halfway and just buy a ticket. [laughter] you know, colorado and washington just bought a ticket. they bought a ticket to the lottery. we have to figure out if this is the lottery that's good or bad. if you don't like lotteries, and i respect some do not like them as all, can it be less than it otherwise might be? think about winners and losers if you will because when you design a lottery in a state or anywhere else, you are thinking about a world where you maximize public benefits or the untowards effects of the behavior. it could be all bad or imperfect world, we need the money, payouts, and we'll make people

rich, by the way, and we're going to try to maximize social value. who are the winners, potentially, and who are the losers? it's too soon to tell. take it with a grain of salt. big loser, if they don't step up, is congress. if ever there were an issue that congress ought to address is the marijuana, con numb drum that we find ourselves confronting, and i say that knowing that i'm in dc, and everyone says, well, there's so many important issues here, the budget crisis, the manufacturers, the fiscal cliff, the charade, create a crisis, and somehow save the day in partisan sniping back and forth. this is a real issue. we need guidance on this, folk, and congress is the place to go. this is a democratic discussion to have, and we're having that discussion now at the state level in colorado, and i applaud my friends working on the issue. we're talking about all the implementation issues ranging from taxes, and how do you, for

example, set the right tax level? we have to have a sprit vote in colorado on taxes because, thankfully, in my state, you can't raise taxes unless the people decide you have a vote to raise them. the legislate can't do it unless it's okay by the voters. i love that. it's great. we have to have a proposed tax on marijuana in my state, and if you set the tax too high, there would be more black market behavior; right? that's part of the issues that a democracy has to work through. why can't congress be relevant? i mean, are we that cynical that we think they cannot be relevant to take on an issue that's so important as this one and where voters vote with the feet? eighteen states now, medical marijuana are approvedded, and now the two statings, colorado and washington, but then you also have close votes in other places, as you know, and even arkansas moved towards some recognition of cannabis so you're starting to see even in

the deep south there's a sense of change going on here m congress, number one, could be a loser, but there's a chance for them to win. representative degette, democrat in my state, joined up with republican, mike coffman for a state option bill. let the states opt out. i realize there's problems with that, but look to the 1932 election, that's how fdr emerged the wets and the dries and got something accomplished here to move our country towards an understanding of contentious issue that has ultimately good and bad effects no matter how we sort it out. make congress relevant if they dare to do it. demand they do it. what else are they doing in all seriousness? what else are they doing to help us out in the trenches? the president wins no matter what. he's already won. he got more votes in colorado as george soros said because of the turnout of the amendment, by the way, dwarfing his own votes in my state, which he won

unexpectedly, but the president will be vague, should be vague. the justice departments, i served there, full disclosure. they will be vague. they will not tell people how they will enforce the laws. quite whines about, oh, we need holder to tell us what to do. stop it. we're americans. we know they have discretion. congress can step up. don't whine about the administration. that's ridiculous. the president already won. the states could win big, and we have a debate in colorado going op. i talk about taxes. talk about issues like potent sigh and consumer protection, young people, all specifics are the product now of a debate that's going on with the governor's task force, a lot of good people from different parties. we'll make our way, you know, we can wait for the feds or actually stand up and do what we do which is run our own lives and do as much as we can. we'll see ultimately what happens with that, but the

states and federalism could really gain. federal law enforcement, my friends, i served with you. you win. you absolutely win. you with more important than ever because regardless of how the marijuana discussion goes, we have tremendous drug issues that come with it. there will be a black market. my friends in the dea are going to have to take on that challenge as they do so effectively today, not just here, but armed the world. there are international implications. look at mexico. they are having a discussion now on marijuana decriminal zigs, less popular in terms of polls in mexico than it is in the united states. nay had so much carnage in the country, 60,000 dead by some estimates in the last six years. 25% of what the cartels supposedly make in mexico comes from selling marijuana to the united states. our friends in the dea, those who support theming elsewhere, and the task forces at the state and local level have plenty of work to do. they need our support, will be

relevant in the future as they deal with the scorch of prescription drugs, another matter to talk about. when are we going to get truly serious about that threat and many others that we face. timely, you know, as we look forward to the people, do the people win or lose? you know, one president said, and i have to quote this, quote, we cannot possibly imagine a successful form of government in which every individual citizen has the right to interpret the constitution according to his own convictions, beliefs, and prejudices. chaos would develop, unquote. that was dwight eisenhower in the little rock school crisis, and, you know, we have to recognize the tension between the need to uphold federal law and make it relevant, and on the other hand, to recognize people want change, and sometimes they are impatient for change, and sometimes there's a reason to be impatient for change. the best way to honor the constitution is to have everyone do their jobs, do the best we

can at the state level. we could use some help. we know congress could help us. they could help us today. i pray they will help us. they should do their job, and they can set the law, and we can begin to have a discussion about how to deal with this new lottery that we've all created. thank you. >> thank you. again, let's clarify a little bit what the options are here. paint a couple world -- you wrote an interesting article arguing there's a need for congressional action. walk us through why that's important. give us, briefly, one world in which congress essentially does nothing, remains preoccupieded, and when you say is it really possible that congress would do nothing to stay gridlock and preoccupy itself with harmful trivia all the time, i hope it was rhetorical question. >> of course, please forgive me. >> walk us through a world where congress does nothing and rely on discretion policies set by

the white house. compare that with the world where congress steps up and acts in terms of the practical implications of each. >> a big question, and a very brief answer. cops need clear rules. we expect that of them. they have to be able to follow the law as they know it. they are not law professor, an they shouldn't be. we got to be abe to have clear direction as to what to do. we have two states that reported to opt out of the federal criminal code. that's a problem. we got the other states that are medical marijuana states that have, in effect, done the same thing, and then we see enormous change, by the way, in medical marijuana, and in my state, it was passed in 2000. for a number of years it was slow getting started, and then suddenly, when the state really announced that they were going to allow the regulation to proceed, let the dispensaries flourish and the feds did nothing. they really did nothing. i was there. i know. i was part of the doing nothing. by the time we ended up the last four years living up to the direction -- the election rather, we had a tremendous

increase in dispensaries. in denver, we had nor dispensaries than starbucks heading into this election. we had tremendous reduction in the age of the average user from an average of the mid-50s when the law was passed in 2000 to 28 years old by the time of the election this past year, so basically, what happens is that the states will be -- they will be experimenting as angela said, and unless we have clear direction as to how this should develop, what we do in colorado is going to drive, and washington will drive behaviors in a lot of other states. surrounding states that do not want this, just as in prohibition, they should have their own laws and decide to not have it, but, you know, how do you expect drug control task forces to be able to contend with that kind of a problem? internationally, we're going to affect canada and mexico and other parts of the world. you need direction. >> what is congress' specific value added here?

>> well, they could do two things. i mean, number one, they could definitely clarify, as in the case of an opt-out that's possible for states under certain conditions to go their own way, but then there would have to be national consideration of what the issues are that i just described. the other thing is medical marijuana. it's about time we did a pharmaceutical clinical trial, isn't it? we ought to have some exemption that lets those who are experts in scientific medicine determine what the values are, what the it should be, and how do you dispense is properly. dispensed through private businesses or pharmacies and so on like other medicines. we have not had that dugs. we need congress to look at that issue as well. >> michael, do you think there's a role for congress? >> i think that is a theoretical question because i think congress is out of the ball game from just about everything. they have no intention to go

back. there are a million issues that it ought to revisit, a million issues urn the affordable care act that it ought to revisit, and there's a million issues here and there and everywhere, and the reality is we live in the executive state, and congress is impotent, and that is not going to change. >> in practice, the world we live in is one in which this is a policy made up by the states interacting with the white house and suing each other? >> yeah, not suing each other, but in a very, messy policy environment, and i just want to add one thing to this, and i don't know whether we disagree on this, but you see this more and more frequently that the administration, precisely because it knows that congress won't do anything, makes policy by official announcements of law enforcement, so we're going to have our own de facto dream act which congress refuses to enact

by administrative law enforcement. that's very clear example of the dynamics here. you might see the same thing in drug enforcement, not going to enforce it, period, because congress won't enact a law to that effect. i find that sort of to go much beyond the ordinary exercise of administrative and executive discretion in law enforcement. it's policymaking by law enforcement which is to my mind a very, very -- in the teeth of congressional statutes to the contrary, i there are real policy difficulties with that, but there are also real constitutional problems with that. it's just sort of one more sign off dysfunction. >> not the way things are supposed to work. angela, if that's the environment we're talking about, in practice, congress stays out and you get a vacuum with a lot

of back and forth. is that a stable enough environment to have the experiments that need to happen? >> see if michael implies if your for experimentation, you have an agenda to reach an octoberive. i'm not prolegallization, just progood public policy. you can't make an information vacuum. whether this is a stable solution, and as i mentioned earlier, i don't think we can have a good experiment in one year. we need a long enough time line, and if it's stable enough to make the experiments worth something is another question, and i think the time line is three or four years, especially with the criminal justice, and nothing looks in year one and two like it looks in year three and four. you know, and i'm not a lawyer, but in a way, i don't mind a wiping and nudge saying we'll stay out of the backyard on the following conditions, and i think that can be on a long list

of constraints. subject to mining your matters in other states, doesn't spill into other states, make sure you keep your own techniques, and resources so people who do come dependent, and they will, to ensure you respond responsibly in the environment when we are unclear on what's going to happen. give us a little time to figure it out. >> wait until there's appropriations on it. there's two pieces of good news for the audience. those standing in the back and want to take a load off your feet, there's seats in the front m come on up. the other good news is i'm on the panel. before we go to questions, i want to throw in a few comments of my own. [laughter] because as monte python once said, "now for something completely different," i'm going to bring in a side issue. i will not be keeping you long. this is not a side issue. i want to talk for just a minute

bout the lessons of what i think is perhaps one of the great public policy successes of the last ten years or at least public process successes, and that's the gay marriage debate, a debate i know a lot about because from the day it started i advocate going through that as a state level issue and not nationalizing the issue. it turns out to be relevant here. i wanted to take a minute it e get you thinking about that and the lessons learned from them. marijuana, gay marriage, what do these two things possibly have in common? actually, a lot, both specifically and generally. specifically, they are both very controversial, moral issues, a appointment to come back to, and they break down heavily along generational lines, both issues on which there was a strong national consensus, now broken down. we see regional disparities with a libertarian west and a judgmental south.

we seed rapidly changing public opinion in gay marriage and marijuana. we both see both issues in the last couple years reaching a tipping point where 51% of the population calls for policy change, and that's new. they are both weighed primarily through referendum, like it or not, not through most legislation, and they are both in the united states and to a large extent in the world completely untested policies the public is asked to digest. there are also similarities in a broader sense to point out which is also what i call de facto social issues. a social issue is a moral values issue; right? an issue in which people are divided not along policy lines of should the tax rate be 35% or 25%, but the long issues of right and long. good and evil. these are very difficult issues to compromise on as we know from the abortion debate, the granddaddy of them. you are talking about fundmental values. one of the changes seen in

politics in the past few years is more and more issues that are not inherently social value issues, acting as if they were. immigration is one of those. that's become a law and order issue on the right. it could be an issue of how many green cards, how much order enforcement is korst effective, uh-huh. it's about our people obeying the law on one hand, and on the other hand, compassion and human rights. obamacare turned into a social issue. the right views it as a moral question about are we going to have a socialist country or nots, not a health policy question. gay marriage is a social policy question, not just like, you know, can first cousins marry. it's fundamentally do you approve of homosexual conduct or not. what's your view of the bible, tradition, human rights and equality, things that are hard to compromise op, and now marijuana, which i would argue also behaviors as drug policy does as a social policy issue, a

social values issue to a large extempt. president obama and the administration have said, you know, we're going to deal with this as a legal issue. we're going to do what the law tells us. unfortunately, as you've been hearing, the law is not all together clear on it. there's going to be a lot of tussling over the law. drug policy does not settle it handedly either, partly, because as angela said, what we are talking about is making decisions in a vacuum without having information yet. how do you handle these very contentious social issues to reach a point where the country reaches a stable, more or less common sensible outcome without a 50 year culture war like the kind we see on abortion. here's where gay marriage offers a very important lesson, some extent in disagreement with michael. i think it's been a complete success. now, it's not a success if you're a gay person and a married gay person as i am, and married in dc, and every time you commute home to virginia, your marriage disappears. that's not satisfactory to us.

it's equally unstory if you believe as conservatives do that we should have one national marriage policy against same-sex marijuana and you want a constitutional amendment to ban it. however, i argue this has, in fact, been a huge success for the country as a whole, for our politics, and, indeed, for gay marriage because it does things -- it does four things very well. first, the policy of delegation of the states which is, i should have said, clearly, this is how we've handled gay marriage. federal government took almost no action. all done at the state level primarily. first, reduces information. states had a chance to try the policy to see what happens. we never -- we know whether the sky falls, divorce rates up and down, what happens with kids and so on. we are getting that information leading to the second advantage, your much better at managing risk if you don't have to bet the whole country up front on one outcome or the other. you manage risk more intelligently that way. that also allows very important

politically for adaptation and flexibility. we don't have a national consensus on marriage, and we don't have a national consensus on marijuana. in my view, in fact, we won't on either of the issues have anything like an encompassing consensus any time soon but i think we'll get there. in the meantime, you need a policy. you don't want in concrete a policy in which time quickly underminds because it's not sustainedded by public opinion. delegating the matters to the states is a very good way to keep the policy at a level where it can adapt to changing public opinions as it has been doing on gay marriage. finally, delegating the policy gives you time to build a con consensus. if the supreme court were to come in now and order same-sex marriage, in fact, before it this very term, it would preempt the national debate that i think has to happen about what is the right policy here. that debate has a long way to go, and i argued that gay people ben visit for, very

significantly from letting it unfold. marijuana, i think, is similar in all of those respects. i think that from a point of view of wisdom, set aside law, and federal government ought to view what the states do not as a threat, but an opportunity. an opportunity first to adapt to public opinion without setting a whole country or putting all of policy on inflexible footing where it crashes down because people are not with you anymore. second, a chance to find out what works and what does not work, ask some of the questions that angela appointments out that we really need to get answered if we are going to do this right. i think some of our allies in the prosecution of the drug war overseas would also love to see us develop a sustainable and workable policy. third, not least important, launch a discussion that's been frozen in amber for now 20 or 30 years by the federal drug war over what exactly marijuana policy and drug policy should look like. this is an opportunity to start that debate and it would be a

pity if we don't have it. having said that, it's an important distinction between the gay marriage debate and marijuana dente. it was easy for gay marriage. marriage has been a state level actually since before the time of the constitution, back in colonial days, marriage was state issued making it easy and natural for the federal government to step back and just let states go their separate ways. it has not made it politically uncontroversial, but it's made it natural. on drug policy, the federal government has been the primary actor for what a sempleg -- century now, and it would be a change of direction and not a natural thing at all for the federal government to say, you know what? we're going to see this territory to state level experimentation. that, in itself, would be a major shift in direction and not a particularly easy one to perform so with that as a caveat, let's launch into -- why don't we go to -- we've got,

what, 35 minutes? we've got extraordinary people in the audience. the rsvp, we have representatives of foreign government, very directly involved in drug enforcement, and we got people from the drug enforcement administration. we've got white house office on drug control policy and others judges from the rsvp list. let's go to all of you. we have a microphone -- oh, by the way, sorry, i forgot to mention now is the time we also have a twitter hash tag. the twitter hash tag is "bimj" that stands for brooking institution marriage -- marijuana if you were wondering. if it's not a good question, don't bother. [laughter] there's a roaming mrch -- microphone and see who will break the ice. can't resist a man raising his

cowboy hat to see where this is going. >> law enforcement against prohibition. i'm concerned about what this panel and the one before i saw in october, the lack of discussion on public safety. from my perspective, 18 years of street cop, marijuana prohibition reduces greatly public safety, a couple years ago, there was a senate hearing, 200,000 children live in the home of a sexually abusive parent or guardian because my profession's only arrests 2% of the people who have child cyber porn in their home. as a police officer, i know we spent about 10 million hours to arrest about 800,000 people for marijuana. never captured in the statistics is searching in a car and there's no marijuana found, it's not captured with statistics, you know, nationally. we spend millions and millions of hours chases this green plant, flying around in helicopters opposed to catching pedophiles in the chat room, for example, and during the 18 years, i went to zero, zero

calls for service generated by the use of marijuana. alcoholic use generated 1300 including homicide, suicide, rape, child abuse, ect.. win of the things i would like the panel to discuss is are you talking to street level cops, especially those who have no skin in the game, retired, not trying to protect the burn grants, good overtime, ect., to determine how much police resources are put into chasing the green plant? thank you. >> very good. take a couple. would the gentleman in the row behind you i think. >> thank you. i'm from one of those governments that you mentioned in the netherlands. >> i think the context was even the netherlands. [laughter] >> i was going to say that the united states is readily becoming a more liberal country than the netherlands on issues like gay marriage and legalizing marijuana because we only decriminalized and legalized it as mentioned.

i would like the panel to address the international implications a little more when the federal government would decide to leave these states, leave the action of the states in the books because it's a clear violation of international obligations by the united states, ratified several treaties which don't allow for legalization in any way of marijuana. >> very good. >> if we -- if the united states decides not to enforce these acts and these international obligations, what would the effects abroad be? i could consider -- you always asked other countries to obey by international treaties. if you stop doing that yourself, could that mean that eventually other countries that produce the drugs decide not to live up it their treaty obligations, and what effect would that have. i'd like you to address that, thank you. >> yes, thank you. why don't we do those two. actually, hoping you would tell us how this affects our national

obligations. [laughter] who wants to talk about resource diversion? any comments there? >> you know, i would just say in terms of cops on the street, i appreciate the point of view. in colorado, the debate is relevant to what you were saying. number one, the main issue that we have is to determine when someone is driving under the influence of drugs or duid, what's the standard going to be, and how are we going to test people in a way that complies with civil rights, but, of course, has an overriding effect of addressing public safety. we had a lot of testimony. we had a lot of speaking out proand con from law enforcement throughout the campaign in colorado about implications and whether moving towards legalization was better or worse than the status quo. i worked my own career in law enforcement and prosecution, there's disagreement. i mean i heard passionate disagreement from a lot of people i respect. well, one thing we have to do

now is have a standard that protect people who visit our state and drive on the roads so people know that that's -- there is going to be a safe system for them, and we're not sure yet how to do that. our legislature has that as job one now in the new session that starts this week in colorado, and your point of vu, your input would be valuable in our state. >> against legalization in colorado; is that right? >> i was opposed to it. i also publicly predicted it would not pass. my credibility is nil. [laughter] >> i have to say i support this, and i predicted it to pass. [laughter] i think, you know, as the researcher, i hate to say this, but this is why i want to experiment. experiment you figure out if resource dedication makes a difference. i think they are divided on the issue. some believe this is the ailing of a new era. i don't know how it's going to shake out. i'm not an advocate. i want to see the basis before i make up my mind and give us a

couple years. >> it's not clear it shakes out the same way in every jurisdiction; right? >> no. >> every place could handle this quite differently. >> that's right. >> how about internationally? this is tough one; right? there's no easy answer on this. it's already the case that the states and federal government are at different places on this issue. nothing changes that. any time in the future unless we can imagine a world where public opinion swings back, and we go back to a single 50 #-state policy. what do we do about international obligations in that context? >> this is yet another example as to why you can't let the states do their own thing with no congressional leadership here. you have to consider issues like what the gentleman from the netherlands said, and with all do respect, it's different than gay marriage. it's not a crime to marry somebody. some states do not recognize it, but it's not criminalized. this is why congress has got to lead. we have a world where there's law enforcement resources in the tens of millions devoted to a

policy that states have said we want no part of. we have got to get leadership, and internationally, this is key. we will affect the netherlands and other places. we have obligations that those of us in the state, whether we voted for or against it, we did not consider that. i just wanted to with all due respect, i don't think anybody thought about the netherlands voting up or down in this. >> sorry. what if michael is right and congress is not stepping in, what happens with the international -- >> he's usually right in my experience. >> unfortunately, in this case, he probably is so what happens? >> well, i don't know the specifics of the treaties at issue; right? but this, in fact, is another one of these sort of federalism issues that you mentioned at the beginning that will come to the forefront, and our international obligations, by and large did not bind the states, two of our counselor obligations even, and it is true in this regard too

saying if we, the united states find ourselves internationally to not to decriminalize marijuana, the federal government or the state government and the answer to foreign countries unless there's something in the treaties that we committed to i'm sorry. >> it's an uncomfortable issue for the united states. we spend the time looking at other countries that violate international treaties. this is an up comfortable situation for the united states. i might have to have help from the audience to get the countries right. the treaty, and there is a president now, i think they have -- the elected american countries that denounced the resolutions, and then they immediately reiterated -- [inaudible] if there's no objection, the

u.s. -- >> [inaudible] >> the u.s. could do the same thing, denounce the resolution and immediately reclassify their reservation on marijuana. there's some -- it's -- it's uncharted territory. >> let's take a couple more. do we have a microphone? twitter hash tag reminder, those of you out there, twitter line "bimj." let's go to -- that's a gentleman in the very, very back. let's be democratic. thank you, yes. >> i'm with students for sensible drug policy. thank you so much for the comments today. i commend you for taking a pragmatic approach here. i was wondering if you would clarify a bit what your ideal congressional solution to this would be? sounds like you are advocating

for more, like, the way that the federal government regulates alcohol which is leaving it up to the states; is that correct in >> i think that's a fair statement. briefly, i like the concept of an opt-out bill. representative degette has one. that's a good approach. there should be requirements for that for young people. you need a workable standard. you're going to have respect whatever national agreements are in place and so on, but, yeah, that's the approach i take. i'm not troubled by the fact states may go in other direction on the issue. to be clear, while i oppose amendments 64 in colorado, you know, my position is that congress should be doing this. i mean, i have written elsewhere and talked elsewhere. congress needs to have this discussion now and start stepping up to the plate, reflect the changing attitudes that many people have on this issue, figure out what to do about drug abuse and so on as they go and have a political

compromise that reflects reality in a way that we do not today in our national public policy. >> thank you. >> let's take -- do we have a microphone close tots -- to the front? come up front here and knock off -- we got gary mitchell, the red tie, take three, also, the gentleman with his two fingers up. >> thank you very much, gary mitchell, write the mitchell report, and i want to ask a question that follows in a sense from the first one asked about law enforcement's perspectives, and i'll direct that to troy, but if others can comment, that's great too. in the hearings, and the conversation in colorado around the legalization, what were the perspectives that you heard from the sort of public health social services community op this issue? >> mr. mitchell, a great question. >> round up o few. >> really is. >> yes mapp in the red --

gentleman in the red tie. >> i'm an an economist, meaning i'm in favor of federal drug policies, and i'm a retired cia analyst so i don't use illegal drugs myself. i was introduced to marijuana policy 40 years ago in grad school and persuaded that it's less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco which all agree on. there's a time when there were major marijuana commissions in the u.s. and several other countries, all of which recommended more liberal policies, and only the netherlands followed the advice of its drug experts, and the u.s., we still can't get marijuana out of schedule 1 out of the controlled substances act, although it clearly does not meet the three criteria for being a schedule 1. my question is how is drug policy so immune to common sense? [laughter] >> dpluk -- good luck on that. >> all right, there's a

gentleman here. >> thank you. i'm a columbian-american, economist also. for 25 years, i've studied illegal drugs in latin america, and a year ago, i was nominated and elected one of the 13 members of the united nations international narcotics control board. what you say is true that the united states, that the states don't have to comply with international treaties. the problem intergnarlly is that international drug control regime is our creation. it was created by the united states so internationally this is going to have great repercussions. i don't know what will have, but this is not new. you know, the united states simply say tough luck, we're

going to have to confront today jay pap, russia, sweden, for example, whoever has the three most aggressive prohibitionists now globally. in latin america, in three days, on the 12th, that's the deadline for the vote on the readmission of bolivia for supplying to make legal. five days ago, as of the 5th, there were five countries that reject it formally. the united states, united kingdom, canada, italy, and sweden. what we see is a cop -- contradiction in policies, and from the latin american point of view, what we see is what latin

america calls double morals of the united states. that is going to have consequences in terms of not just with the war on drugs and latin america, but on the credibility of american policies. this is what we're doing in colorado and washington is not just one policy, but a national policy. >> thank you. i think we can take two as comments rather than questions unless you have something to add, but the first one in terms of the public health perspective in colorado, there was a clear question in that, and -- >> yeah, just briefly, mr. mitchell, and i apologize for jumping the gun. i'll say we didn't have that debate, and the reason we didn't, and angela mentioned it, it's an initiative. there were no hearings. we have something called the title war where you frame your question people vote on, but that's it. to answer your question, we really did not have a discussion on public health benefits.

now, i have read a lot of the literature, and i commend angela for her good work in this area, but we don't know about marijuana in terms of its medical benefits. everyone here needs to admit that. once it goes through a pharmaceutical trial, and we actually have the fda go through all the tests, then we'll know, and we'll know how to dispense it, when to use it, but the idea that we somehow know so much more about it, that we know about alcohol, we can compare them is false. we do not know. we have got to figure that out, though. we have an obligation now with tens of thousands of people in think state with medical cards that get medicine from places like the boulevard not far from where we live with a guy with a board jumping up and down saying prescriptions, no doctor required. i mean, that's the world we live in. the hypocrisy of the world that we live in where we don't trust med sip and science to help us figure out what the answer should be. >> that's to go to a point you made earlier, a process to take years, if not decades to

understand ramifications; right? we're at the very beginning of a very long road here. >> can i just -- >> yeah. >> the -- i propose something both of you said. i'm not against experimentation. i'm actually in favor of it; right? my point was simply on an earlier occasion. it's difficult to stabilize it so to take the gay marriage example, i totally agree with you so far that the process worked well ervetion right? but it is also the case that we may not get enough time to run actual experiments because, you know, half the gay rights community understandably runs around with the due process clause in the hip pocket and doesn't go fast enough, then they jump the gun on this; right? you have -- the problem is not totally similar in the marijuana

situation, but i agree with you. i mean, i think you need some comparatives, some states that don't go down the road; right? you don't want to process that is willie nilly overwhelming the country where states that might be old and say, you know, it's not worth the trouble. the enforcement costs are too high. whatever. so that is my point. how hard it is to stalize, compartmentalize policy solutions. >> asking for a lot, pacing or -- >> fair enough. >> getting it in a way to let you unfold it. what happened on gay marriage, which is really interesting, is although, i think, nine states now have legalized it, a much larger number of states amended their constitutions to forbid it. people in the debates feel strongly one way or another, and end result of that is to wall off a certain number of states with it's hard to run the

experiment at a very rapid pace unless the supreme court decides to weigh in, and it would be interesting, wouldn't it, if states decide to pass constitutional amendments saying marijuana's illegal here, and you cannot change that without changing the constitution first. something like that might happen. i don't know. >> yeah, right. >> to the gentleman who asked about, i think, the question was why is it that drug policy is immune to common sense? i'll field that one. my favorite quotation by the late representative of massachusetts said "the problem with some people is they think this place is on the level." i only ask the bear that in mind. going back to the comments, most in the back. we got three hands up. can we get all three of those? keep the hands up until the microphone reaches you if you don't mine. >> i'm from safe foundation. -- >> what foundation? >> i would like to point out my comment or question is regarding

the international implications, and i'm glad the gentleman from netherlands did point it out. i come from a country called india where most people believe the u.s. plays head i win, tail you lose, or right is right, generally, and it does not follow any international laws itself, but forces others through blackmail to follow them, and given that it would be good that it breaks down because a lot of countries can go the way they think is bright and do it the way, and i would like to know if that is acceptable to the united states. >> very interesting question. thank you. what is safe, by the way? >> it is attempting to make the world safe even though it's getting worse. [laughter] >> we had a couple others back there. >> when you start talking about

winners and losers, i wanted to follow the money. as this trend plays out, will, for example, will traffickers convert themselves into profit making legal narco traffickers, will states be able to tax enough -- the trade enough to make it profitable for the states to want to change for fiscal reasons? are there other issues like that? could you address them? i don't know what they all might be, but i'm sure you've given a good deal of thought. thanks. >> one more in the back, i think, is that person still -- >> yes, david barden with stop thedrugwar.org. you commented earlier that you don't think doj should publicly announce a policy in the marijuana initiatives.

i presume you hold that view with regard to medical marijuana also. my question for you as a former d organization j official, -- doj official, what do you feel should be the internally understood policy if there should be any, and is it possible for there to be a policy internally that does not ultimately become a matter of public record? >> well, why don't you start by answering that one. >> in reverse order, if i may. the policy that the doj should follow is the law, and the u.s. criminal law is what it is. that's my answer to you. you have to understand that it is the executive branch's role to faithfully execute the laws, but the fundamental issue is are we going to allow this or not? you know, the -- that's a question fundamental in the democracy, i argue for congress, and not for some aappointmented official in the executive branch to decide who is not accountable to really anybody other than

ultimately the president of the united states, but not accountable to an electorat. with respect to the gentleman from barrens, you know, i would just say to you that it's an interesting quo you posed, and i wonder if you could restate it. i'm not sure i got all the nuances of it. >> we're going to see as a result of legalization all changes in the drug market potentially. what will those look like. will illegal money convert to legal operations and enforcement issues. it's a great question, sir, and i say this. in 1984, the congress tried to take on the issues of the modern, what we now know as the cartels and so on. that was the drug control act of 84. the idea was to spend the drug resources, really focused on the big fish. we're going to go out with the organizations that actually caused violent crime, and that's going to be the focus, and that

is the national policy. it's a great policy for us to pursue, and it's the one that is the mission of the dea and the other agencies that support that effort including the task forces that were discussed. by the way, we have nothing in the country without the task force. there's no offense to michael, but i mean, on the ground that's what we do. we do not have roving bans and dea agents ever where. they are strapped to the hill, and there's not many much them. they do a great job, but you need to use the locals, and their exper tease and resources to be able to accomplish anything in terms of dealing with the drug control act in priorities of getting organized crime as the main target. i think this is why we also need leadership at the federal level. we'll have experiments and data perhaps, depending on how the feds treat what happens to washington and colorado, but we'll have taxes in place; right? washington, of course, has its executing tax 25%. commentators said that's too high. we're going to see illegal activity. bottom line is law enforcement

will deal with the same kinds of organizations they are now. the experience in colorado in that regard is e los treetive. there's the medical marijuana industry, thousands of dispensaries now in the state, and the analysis showed as is publicly released in 2009 that well over half of all the folks involved in the dispensaries at that time have prior criminal convictions for serious felonies, and, you know, that was quite explosive when that news leakedded out or got out, eventually disclosed, and the media picked up on it. can folks involved in control activity convert themselves into medical care givers? that's essentially what we are talking about. the answer is emphatically, yes, they do. we see that happen now. what we're going to have to safeguard, one of the things that is essential nationally is we're going to have a lot of

folks who are really good at drug distribution and understand this industry much better than the mom and pop operators or the private huge fund out in silicone valley. they will be focusing on how to capture the market as much as possible. it's going to be a tough time for the dea, for those who support and the justice department, those operations. we have got to have a debate about what happens in terms of crime. there's the bottom line that there's a sense that this makes violence crime go down. i pray that's true, but i'm not at all convinced because until these extraalties are addressed, you though, we really won't know, and we know a lot of the folks already in the medical marijuana business, and i'm sure, there's law-abiding people there, not following federal law in one area, but those industries have as seen in the 18 states, a lot of folks who are bad guys, and that's just who they are. >> michael, i want to ask troy

two questions that maybe sound paranoid, but suppose there's local officials that assist dispensaries in setting up these things and how do stay clear of the state law prohibitions, aiding and abetting on the federal law, and the other -- i mean, along the same lines or similar lines, showing i'm a paranoid libertarian, suppose these dispensaries, and legitimate enterprises under state law put their money, their business accounts with some bank. could the treasury then come along and tell you what you're in violation of 15 federal laws, aiding and abetting criminal enterprises, but if you buy the next, country wide will make it go away? [laughter]

>> i think the answer is yes and yes. [laughter] >> i feared that might be the answer. >> no, i mean, those are great points, and this is an issue for us in colorado now as it's been in the whole medical marijuana speerpt. we have a division in the state department of revenue, that's what we do. i have a high school buddy in that division, used to be a state trooper, and now she's enforcing state laws that regulate marijuana. she used to do road kill operations, seize cars and so on that had marijuana, and now she's actually enabling this because that's what our law requires. federal law doesn't require any of it. is that aiding and abetting? i don't know. i did a case survey and looked. in a way, this gets to the point raised earlier about the de facto policy which rob us of our liberty through, you know discretion that frankly is not rule of law discretion. >> i guess a lot will be decided

by the court in due course. >> i think that's true. >> do we know anything about anything at all about likely effects in the market, the drug markets? >> we know it's private, and people will be using it more, and we don't know how that spills over into other behaviors. if they drink more, there's more crime. if they use more and drink less, there's likely to be less of it. what extent, there's an exaggeration of tax rates and what to expect on all sides, and, again, any experiments -- >> gentleman in the back made an interesting appointment of so what treaties fall apart. maybe it's good at the international level as well. any thoughts? >> well -- >> you caught us by surprise on that one. >> it's a tough one. i appreciate the gentleman from the united nations and so on. i love my country and the gentleman from safe. we don't mean to -- we're now

trying to do something bad, we're just focused on ourselves, and that's what we did when we made this an issue. i'm sorry other people suffer. we're going to make more foreign policy if we don't get leadership out of washington soon, relevant to people who live in flyover territoriment we'll make immigration policies as well. eventually, as we've seen through gay marriage, we'll solve that issue. that will be addressed eventually regardless of what congress decides to do. this will happen with marijuana. >> i completely agree with that. the constitutional issues that i meant to speak to are one thing, and attitude of go fly a kite, you know, displayeded on an international scale is another matter. i'm against that, all i suggested is that the international treatly obligations do not confer any rights on the united states government vis-a-vis the states that would not otherwise have. >> the other idea is thatting

world looks to the united states on leadership for this too. it could be an opportunity. in this regard, two of the states, and we would like to see what goes op, and we're going 20 wait, given a little chance to figure it out and learn, and we'll share with you what we learn. that much allows other countries to think it's okay to learn too. >> that would require explicit policy statements by the united states as opposed to another approach. we've got four minutes left and five or six questions. you guys want to to do a lightning round? we'll just spit one out. we don't know if we'll get through them all, but do this cluster right here. >> i'm steve, with the marijuana policy project, and one of the lead drafters of the initiatives in colorado. i first -- hi, troy, how are you?

>> good to see you. [laughter] >> i wanted to address troy what you said about the 2009 -- >> how bad was it? >> policy measures here. just outdated the law passed in 2010 mandated background checks of owners with dispensaries so the owners now are completely felony free and legitimate. that leads into my question that i'll pose about the process, and the obama administration has not attempted to meet with the drafters of the initiative or really any stake holders in colorado or washington and wondering whether that's an appropriate way to determine or settle the state, federal conflict. >> it's been busy lately. let's -- any others here? the gentleman here. make them quick if you don't mind. >> sure. neil franklin, director of law enforcement against prohibition. hear about leadership, again, steve mentioned leadership.

special markets, this is the impotent congress, no leadership there. is this an opportunity for the president, and what is the president's latitude, you know? i know executive branch enforcing the law, but what's the president's latitude, and what can the white house do? what should he do? i hope these answers get to him. >> let's go to the gentleman with the beard. we have a couple tweets; right? >> i'm dylan scott with governing magazine. i wanted to get back to just the broader federalism issue which i talked to several people who said like john did that between gay marriage, the affordable care act, and marijuana, we're kind of redefining federalism in a lot of ways, or we could be. i wanted to just kind of ask you guys in a very, and i know this is intentionally vague, but, you know, what are the potential ramifications of the systeof