coming as well. to be able to say, hey, open in this application, do natural user dictation into that, a lot of things to make it more like we interact with each other as opposed to with a machine. >> host: troy wolverton, what have you learned here at ces? >> guest: i think what we've learned is you're seeing a lot of experimentation from consumer electronics manufacturers, whether it's experimenting with 4k tvs, new types of computer designs, whether it's experimenting with features and functions for a mobile phone, a lot of experimentation going on. not necessarily like new, completely mind-blowing innovations, but what we are seeing is a lot of trying to build on what we've done before and try to make these devices more useful for us. >> host: troy wolverton, "san jose mercury news". personal technology reporter, "the communicators" has been with him for a day here at ces international las vegas. and our program from ces will continue next week on "the

communicators." >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> just ahead, two former solicitor generals, then we're live with the annual u.s./israel policy conference known as aipac with remarks by vice president widen, senator john mccain and benjamin netanyahu. after that we'll join a discussion on the e.u.'s political and economic future and what it means for the u.s. and later the nat returns at 2 -- the senate returns followed later with votes on two judicial nominations to the u.s. district court. >> now, two former u.s. solicitors general give an

overview of some of the cases this term. we'll hear from theodore olson and walter dellinger who was acting solicitor general for president clinton. they spoke at the national association of attorneys general winter meeting in washington d.c. this is a little over an hour. >> it is a tremendous honor to be here. >> [inaudible] >> mic on? >> let me try that again. it is a tremendous honor to be here once again with walter delling general and ted olson, two of the real leading lights of the supreme court bar. they've become good friends of us, and i think they only need very brief introductions before we get going into what the supreme court's been up to. walter dellinger is a partner where he works in the appellate and supreme court practice. he is a former acting solicitor general of the united states, was head of office of legal counsel, has argued many cases in the supreme court.

ted olson chairs the gibson -- [inaudible] supreme court and appellate practice, also was a former solis or to have general of the united states and head of the office of legal counsel. how many arguments are you up to now? about 60? >> 60 as of the end of next month. >> okay. with that, let's start diving in. it's another sleepy year here at the supreme court. [laughter] well, before we get into the -- i mean, what's more boring than domestic relations? i hear that ted's got some domestic relations cases in the court. >> that's got to be a snoozer. >> yeah. [laughter] so before we turn to those unimportant issues like same-sex marriage, voting rights act, affirmative action, let's briefly look back to last term. it's been about eight months since the court issued its decision in the health care case, perhaps a little bit too soon for history to have made its judgment but long enough to have of maybe gotten a little

bit of perspective on what the court has done. so, ted and walter, any thoughts eight months, eight months remissourid? >> yeah. -- removed. >> yeah. i will talk about the obamacare case, obama's decided it's okay to call it the obamacare -- >> [inaudible] >> now that it's constitutional. i want to thank you, although it's a new venue, it's an equally precarious perch you've put us on up on this stage on these little, ricketk stools. [laughter] with dan's and walter's permission, i wrote down a few notes about some of the ironies of the decision that i thought i'd share with you. it was a 187-page decision, and i found several ironies in the decision, legal and political ironies in the decision. we'll see if walter agrees. >> i don't, but go ahead.

[laughter] >> i took these from some of what you said last year. foremost is the majority's conclusion that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is a legitimate exercise of congress' power to tax. during the legislative debate, i think we all remember this, the president and his allies were adamant that the mandate was anything but, absolutely not a tax. had they marketed this provision as a tax, the bill would surely not have passed. there were no votes to spare. so the supreme court saved the signature legislative achievement of the obama administration precisely because it was what the administration said it was not, and it was not what the administration said that it was. early in the, early in the litigation in the case the administration invoked the federal antiinjunction act which restrains the collection of any

tax. the government then argued it was a tax. the suit to enjoy the tax, the suit would be dead on arrival. but the supreme court held that the mandate was just what congress called it, a penalty and not a tax. the choice of labels, the court said, cannot control as to whether the law is constitutional, but does control as to whether the antiinjunction statute applies. and this reminded me of louis carroll. [laughter] when i use a word, when i use a word like humpty dumpty, it means just what i choose it to mean, neither more, nor less. now, the magic of this dueling, call it taxonomy, means that because it is a penalty the court could go forward to consider its legality. because, but because it is a tax and not a penalty, it is a lawful exercise of the taxing power, not an unlawful exerlz of the power to regulate commerce.

and a related irony is that five justices concluded that congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate doing nothing. that is to say not buying health insurance. but five justices -- only chief justice in both camps -- held that congress does have the power to impose a tax for doing the very same nothing. not buying health insurance. so the constitutional law professor, president, who insisted that obamacare was constitutional was right all along. but he was right because he was wrong. [laughter] he was right that it was constitutional because he was wrong that it was not a tax. now, just a -- walter's getting warmed up, i can see. [laughter] i know he'll have an answer for all of this, but just a little bit more. the rejoicing by president obama's supporters over this decision may be another irony and may be short lived. their version of the vastness of

federal power was vindicated, but only if they want to propose politically unpopular taxes. on the other hand, the majority's decision imposed a doctrinal limit on the federal power to regulate commerce, and in another part of the decision, to exercise power under the spending clause. these authorities under the commerce clause and under the spending clause are much easier and political, politically easier to exercise in congress. unfunded mandates are the prefers wayed of taxing -- ways of taxing in sheep's clothing. so the court's decision, while affirming authority that is hard to use, restricted authority which is easy to use which looks an awful lot like a trojan horse. now, the government barely argued that it was a tax. the solicitor general consumed only eight pages during the argument to address the subject and only at the the end of his argument when prompted by justice sotomayor who said, general, could you, please, turn

to the tax clause, justice ginsburg's 61-page concurrence completely ignores the subject, and the four-justice dissent e eviscerates the chief justice's analysis about whether it was a tax. so the only defense of the taxing authority or rationale is in 14 pages of the chief justice's opinion, a full five of which is devoted to explaining why if it's a tax, it doesn't violate the capitation or other direct tax provision under the constitution. in short, for the far-reaching and largely unlitigated conclusion, it pronounces the chief justice's opinion has very little reasoning to back it up. i'll just skip ahead to what i thought would really sum this all up, because this decision came down about the same time a bunch of physicists in switzerland involved something called the higgs -- [inaudible] and it diss occur to -- did occur to me that the decision by

the chief jus is like the higgs bow sun. it is not clear what it is. you can't see it. it disappears as soon as it occurs. and it is called the god particle because it's the answer to everything. [laughter] [applause] >> ted, in the spirit of collegiality, i'll begin with the one point you made that is accurate -- [laughter] and praise you for it, and it's an important one and a sobering one for those who have supported the constitutionality of the affordable care act and who see the possibility of congressional power to ameliorate inequality in america as an important tool. it is sobering that the court actually did inl validate the individual mandate. as a dock tribal matter -- dock

tribal matter, five justices held that subsection a which provides that every covered person shall have minimum health insurance coverage, that that is an exercise of the commerce power and was invalid. chief justice roberts joined the other, the four conservatives on that point to invalidate that. and that, in addition to the curbs on the spending power, are two major doctrinal and conservativizing doctrinal points. now, for the rest of it ted's facts would be percent if he watched -- better if he watched more than one news channel. [laughter] >> msnbc is the only one we get at my home. [laughter] >> the point is a trivial one, but i'll respond in any event. on abc this week with george stephanopoulos while the bill was pending, stephanopoulos said you ran promising not to increase taxes on the middle

class, isn't this a middle class tax increase, and the president said, no, it's not a tax increase. that is the sum total of this motion that obama went around denying that it was a tax. this was, i thought and said the day before the decision came down after hearing the argument on the tax injunction act, that chief justice roberts fully understood that there was nothing remarkable about this law constitutionally, nothing remarkable at all. and i think you've done a wonderful job of sort of covering over the fact that it's sort of embarrassing that this was seen as the end of liberty in the western world when all the provision the question provided was that if you don't have adequate health insurance coverage, you have to pay an additional 2.5% penalty with your federal income taxment of this was an amendment to the internal revenue code. it provides that every april 15th when you calculate your taxes if you don't have minimum health insurance coverage, you add 2.5%. this is a country where when you go to work in the economy and

earn money, you're told you have to pay 7.5% for social security to take care of your old-aged assistance, you have to pay another percentage for your medicare tax to care for your health care until after you're 65, and if you don't have the alternative of private health insurance that is adequate, you have to pay an additional 2.5%. now, where in the world are we going to look at that and say the third is the end of liberty in the western world? that's all it ever was, and the one thing the solicitor general made clear to my great satisfaction in the government's final brief was that you're not in violation of the law if you do not comply, if you choose not to comply with the provision that you have minimum insurance coverage. you're not in violation of the law. they said that in the brief, they said it in oral argument, as long as you choose the alternative of paying the 2.5% penalty. so what is the big deal? we've managed to extend health insurance coverage to an extraordinary number of americans who were without it

and whose imposition on the system was dysfunctional. the idea that a rglation of one-seventh of the national economy, hate it or loathe it -- and i know there are arguments on either sides of those propositions -- the idea that that's not within the scope of the national government's regulation, regulatory authority is not -- there are lots of things that the federal government does to incentivize behavior. it incentivizes people to provide for college educations by giving you a tax break for funds that are set aside for a college education. it disincentivizes having yellow oleo margarine -- >> definitely running into problems with wisconsin now. >> i know it is. i think this is completely constitutionally unremarkable. there is a technical argument -- i knew that fulled strike down -- that you would strike down a legislative action of this magnitude because of a very

technical argument. i think technically the chief justice did not have the better of the argument in the sense that subsection a says you have to maintain minimum coverage. subsection b says if you don't comply with subsection a, you have to pay $2.5% -- 2.5%. roberts thought that was valid as a tack power. but in the technical sense, there'snology to tax if provision ash -- >> you really got into this. >> i did. so i think stepping back from it, nobody is descending in black helicopters and forcing people at gunpoint to the aetna insurance agency and forcing them to sign up for anything. it's an interesting theoretical question whether the government could force you to do it. the court answered that in the negative. but can it provide a modest tax incentive? it leaves you with a real choice. you don't have to buy health insurance if you don't want to, you just have to pay an additional 2.5%. that may be a good or a bad idea, it was always a conservative idea, it was always a republican idea.

don't have single-payer, government-provided system. incentivize people to use, incentivize people to use the private markets. that's what happened. it's a modest tax incentive. it's, to me, unremarkable that it was upheld and somewhat remarkable that there were four people who were hysterical about it being upheld, five counting ted. [laughter] >> see, walter takes this a lot more seriously than i do. but is that 2.5%, what are the odds that'll ever go up? [laughter] >> well -- >> i rest my case. [laughter] >> that is a sign to which there are many people who are having the court make -- this court is getting more and more enmeshed in what are essentially decisions of political policy, and that is a policy choice. no, at some point if you said if it became so onerous that no one would pay the penalty and you were forced to buy insurance, then you would have an argument you're being coerced out of inactivity into something

horrible which is maintaining adequate insurance coverage, and you would have a constitutional argument. as long as it's a genuine choice, in fact, it's perfectly rational to pay the 2.5% since health insurance is generally more costly, and it's capped for really rich people. ted and i -- >> i've paid a lot more than 2.5%. i don't know what i'm getting for it, but i'm paying it. >> i thought you were on medicare, but what -- [laughter] >> now that we've reached agreement on that -- [laughter] we'll turn to some of the cases for this term, and i think we should probably start with the same-sex marriage cases, and i guess we should begin with the case that ted filed along with david boies four years ago. i think when you first filed that case, it was likely to end up in the u.s. supreme court. what you may not have expected was that by the time it was up at the court, the state of california would no longer be

defending the statute, the proposition, and wouldn't be a party in the case. and you might not have expected that the defense of \ act case would be argued the next day. now, how do those two developments effect -- [inaudible] >> well, the supreme court when it granted review in these two cases made the point of saying that it wanted to consider arguments and have briefing on the question of standing, article #-r stand -- iii standing in boast cases -- in both cases n. the proposition 8 case which we're calling hollingsworth v. perry which is the case that david boies and i brought -- and you're right, it was almost four years ago. it was may of 2009 -- um, the attorney general, um, the then-attorney general and the governor of california agreed with us that the challenge to proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment which added to the california constitution a provision that said only marriage between a map

and a woman -- a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in california. that was to overturn a california supreme court decision that had stricken down something called proposition 22 before that which was a statute that basically said the same thing. the california supreme court struck down proposition 22, and the family code provision that went with it, on the grounds that under california constitution under the due process clause and equal protection clause of the california constitution, that was an unconstitutional invasion of those rights of california citizens. that was in may of 2008, and then proposition 8 was already in the works and was put on the ballot and enacted by the citizens of california on november 5 of that year which then changed the california constitution to eliminate that california supreme court decision. in the interim 18,000 same-sex

couples got married in california. the first challenge was to whether or not proposition 8 was really a revision of the california constitution and had to go through the legislature, the california supreme court said, no, no, no, it's an amendment to the constitution, so challenge, a challenge to proposition 8 under the california constitutioning is not going to work pause -- constitution is not going to work because it's an amendment to the constitution. ..

intervened in the case. now, at that point the attorney general mcgovern was still parties to the case. they were defendants in the case so that was a clear case or controversy. they were enforcing the law and the interveners, therefore, could piggyback on the standing of the actual parties. when the decision came down we had a 12 day trial, with evidence from all kinds of experts and plaintiffs and other individuals. the district judge found proposition eight unconstitutional on the grounds that we are specified. at that point needed the attorney general nor the governor decided to appeal to the ninth circuit. so they were no longer parties in the case, or as far as an

appeals was concerned. the proponents did appeal to the ninth circuit and the argued in the ninth circuit and claimed that they had standing. we claimed they didn't have standing anymore. they were no more than any other citizen who wanted to see this measure upheld in the courts. the ninth circuit said what is the law under california? you proponents have a ballot proposition have standing to defend it on appeal where the state itself is not defended to the california supreme court said yes, they discovered something in the california constitution. i had not seen before, that under these ballot propositions, if the state does not defend them in court within the proponents of the initiatives have standing to maintain that case. so that is one of the issues in the proposition eight case that we will be argued on march 26. walter will talk a bit of outstanding issues in the dowler case which is even more fascinating it seems to me and will be argued the next day.

i think most of you heard the arguments about due process and equal protection. we found our briefs on the merits last thursday, the 21s 21st. amicus briefs on our side will be filed by thursday of this week, the 28th of february. the big michigan is whether the obama administration, which is not defending the doma case, which raises the standing question there, whether they will file an amicus brief supporting the challengers of proposition eight, or whether they won't. and if they do, what kind of arguments will then make. we will find out on thursday. in the meantime they were 47 -- 40 some amicus briefs filed on the side of our opponents in the proposition eight case, and will be at least that many files this thursday supporting our position in the case, including there was a "new york times" story this morning you may have seen on the front page, former and present

mostly former republican party officeholders who have signed up in supporting our position in the case, which is a bit of a man bites dog kind of thing -- [laughter] at least some people think that. and we all have a brief that so far as -- so far has over 60 major corporations in america, constituents and everyone other states, major corporations they'll be struck down as unconstitutional, is damaging to their employees, damaging to the workplace. and that sort of thing. there's a lot of very interesting amicus brief filed come and that's a short summer. i hope it was short enough on the standing and the merits of the proposition eight case. >> at this event three years ago, i did something which is unfortunately rare for me, and that is my mind was changed by an argument made by ted. or at least my position was

moved. it was the first time we had met before the attorneys general since ted and david had brought the california litigation. and i challenged ted by reading to him from justice david final opinion as a justice. in a case that had to do with the reopening convictions with new dna evidence. and completely inappropriate to that opinion, was a full page about a caution by david souter about when you should ask people to change their traditional ways of thinking. and the need to go slow, and the need to give people institutions, citizens, courts time to adjust to a change, that a person is not a stick in the mud, he said, just because it takes someone time to get adjusted to new ways of thinking. and i said i'd first identified

this and played as a clear message in a bottle from justice david souter, a message as i read to be about gay marriage, and go slow. and i read that to ted, and ted then began to tell me why he would not accept that admonition. and he talked about defiance, and the fact that one of his -- one of these couples, two women, have children who were in school and ted said the children told them they want their parents to be married by the time they graduate from high school. and ted said i could not look at them in the eye and say you need to wait. and i thought in that moment that that was so powerful, and watching the reaction here, no matter what peoples political persuasions were i think they saw the power of that, and i think that moment that this wass in changed my thinking on it. you know, one of the things that

is quite dramatic about the movement in this, some of you may have done this, you know, there are 40 odd states that do not allow same-sex marriages, but in the brief supporting the proposition eight side of the case, only 20 states joined the brief compared with all the states that joined in maryland versus king. at least marty knows this, there's some silence there that there were, it has been noted that there was some of the states who did not join that brief when usually they will. i still think it's worth making -- ted is i think i would've the outcome of the case, i think ted advocacy has played a major role in shaping views on this issue. whatever happens.

and perry versus hollingsworth and the united states versus winston. i am filing a brief on thursday on standing that takes the position that i've advocated, that the california marriage case was over, and that ted and gay marriage and this couple one with state attorney general and governor didn't appeal. you may want to take a look at that because it does have some implications for your role as attorney general. the question whether the attorney general makes the decision to settle the case, not that it's in applied challenge down th the road, whether people have been proponents of a referendum have article iii stand in federal court to raise constitutional issues. when they are not subject to control, you know, we can see that the state of california, of course, is a proper party, or would be if they chose to appeal. the issue is whether these four individuals, for the five who

were the proponents of prop eight, whether they actually can come in as the state of california. the california supreme court said they do represent california, but i still believe strongly that that does not end the matter. there's a minimum article iii, article iii -- can't simply say on some particular statute some states it's a something like this, any citizen or person doing business in the state can represent the states interest in court. that was to enforce a particular statute. but if the state did that across the board, the federal court will not say we don't allow people to come in with generalized grievances who have not been harmed by the decision in question. and that what california, supreme court, never said is that these big pool -- these people our age and. there's no fiduciary responsibly for the state. they serve for life. they can't be removed, unlike state legislators who sometimes

have been giving standings and state. they can be voted out of office. in one case they were voted out of office. in the new jersey case. but if someone -- this case didn't resolve the issue and seven years from now someone brings in as applied challenge, married in canada and the rational to prevent them from being married in california, they were already married, you go track down these remaining proponents in some retirement home and let them come in and give them the right to litigate on behalf of the state of california? it's a dead giveaway which will resonate with you attorneys general, when they said there's some issues we don't need to resolve. the question is who will pay the attorneys fees? who will pay the attorneys the? if california loses and prop eight is validated? i'm telling you, i'm not telling any secrets. when you talk about david and ted olson, you're not talking small change.

[laughter] and, of course, we don't have resolve. that makes no sense. if these proponents are there as the agents of the state of california, of course the state of california would be responsible for the attorneys the, but they are not agents of the state. i do think it's a hard question that they don't have an interest. they did have an interest in defending the passage of prop eight, which they did successfully in the california supreme court against state law and state constitutional challenges. this was a valid amendment. they accomplished that. there's an issue of federal constitutional law where their interest is not of it. i don't think this is technical in this case. the reason why, so understanding is it's hard to find someone who is injured. if they were marriage licenses available for giving them to gay couples met and married couple like me had to turn hours in --

[laughter] you know? >> let's not speculate about how many will be turned in. [laughter] >> for the cause, you know? in that -- a simple matter is, no one is injured by someone else's action. and that's why i think it's hard to find someone standing, that's what that is an exit ramp. it has a lot of momentum going. the standing argument is one of first impression come in many respects. so i think it depends on whether the court wants to take a deep breath and wait for a more concrete case or not. but ted -- let me say word about the doma case. the defense of marriage case is a. i think this is an interest of state attorneys general as well. this is a natural -- a major breach in the rights of the states. we have what eight states? >> nine, counting d.c. spent nine of our jurisdictions have

chosen to recognize marriage, and the federal judgment which is more are less with minor, and separate exceptions always recognizes states and role inside marriage. the federal government said we're not going to accept your marriage as valid for national purposes. and doma is serious because as long as doma is on the law, no one is truly married in their state if they are not eligible for 1000 federal mandates. the very dramatic case we have edith's winter, she and her partner were married, or a couple for 40 years. they got married in canada, moved to new york. when one died, she left her estate to edith, to whom she'd been married since 2007 in new york at the federal government said the state does not pass to a stuff because you can't be espouse under federal law. and so this three to $62,000

estate tax bill that edith windsor have to pay. the governor is not going to pay that unless and until there ordered by a court of final jurisdiction. and so in my view ther the roads article iii case for controversy here. the president decided that the united states would not argue that doma is constitutional. and here's what i think that's a legitimate decision for a president to me. ted and i have argued cases as solicitor general on behalf of the united states and we didn't -- >> i remember one or two of those. >> but in this case when it was a matter of first impression was of use heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation discrimination, that impulse to questions that are not narrow questions of logic. they are not logic but expense. those questions are hasn't been

discrimination based on sexual orientation that continues to have an effect? and secondly, is this a criteria which is normally related to ability to contribute? and whether you have discrimination and where trade unlike age or mental capacity is not related, there is reason for heightened focus on the part of the course spent legislative justification. >> be careful about the age part. >> that's true. we are up here. >> but that, those are determinations where a president can say i believe this is continuing discrimination and up continuing discrimination and up with a criteria does not normally related, so i think the courts ought to take a hard look and not accept administrative convenience. one final point. resonates with the other cases before the court, like fish, the affirmative action case. i, first of all, in fisher the court is giving heightened scrutiny to claims brought by

white students want to be in the university of texas. sojourns of heightened scrutiny about to make the court the accountable that we're going to give abigail fisher gets heightened scrutiny in a case in point argued and probably so. but secondly, think about this. right now think about what doma does in those nine jurisdictions that recognize, ma that do not preclude same-sex couples from being married. they no longer ask in those jurisdictions about gender. you show up come you get your marriage license, your name maybe porter-jones, ashley-johnson to your issued a marriage license. normally if you apply for your federal benefits, he should have a marriage certificate, it doesn't say in any of those states with the genius of either party. so under doma now, the federal government is going to have to make some determination of who

is what gender instead of accepting the states on certification about who is married. >> johnny cash had a song about this, you know? spent a boy named sue, bright. [laughter] and i think, i think on raise the court is heading in the direction of saying that they're going, if not invalidate, look with very hard scrutiny on any system of admissions that requires the state to make an official determination of a persons race. those are going to be -- you look at everything about a person, who the grandparents were, in the navy, a mother was a teacher, and they say it enriches your class, if we determine what your race is. i think the court will say that is one of the things don't allow. what doma going to require the federal government to do is make an official determination about gender in order to invalidate the decision that has been made by a state to confer marriage

established -- status. >> one more point about the windsor case is as a challenge to the standing, it is being defended by an organization called glaad, you could've thought they could've called themselves something better than that. [laughter] like chilean sea bass or something. [laughter] >> it's a flaky white fish. >> it's a bipartisan committee of the house of representatives are definitive so there's a question about their standing, too. and the supreme court pointed, a harvard professor to argue that case. the supreme court held in an earlier case involving a line-item veto that a member of congress, even though in the statute the legislation gave members of congress a standing to bring the case. that did not give individual

members of congress the ability to challenge and that even though that had to do, that legislation had to do with powers of congress and empowers members of congress. so this is not a member. this is a group of members of congress. it's not a house of representatives. it's not the center. it's not the congress itself. it's a group of members of congress and the house of representatives who are bringing the case and it will be interesting to find out what the court thinks about stand your ground spent i will do a lot of money we will not hold three months of the house have standing to litigate on behalf of the united states. one of the rhetorical points being made, represent the bipartisan legal advisory group says that the justice department does not stand because they actually agree with the decision below with validating doma. my responses of course the department just destiny. but the united states does. the attorney general represents

the united states and have an interest. they say we have an interest in, first of all, the $326,000 we have an interest in applying any statue the turns out to be constitutional. but we are also going to get the court our honest opinion about whether scrutiny should apply and what the consequences of that are. and we're going to facilitate and urge the court to give full argument, not 10 minutes of the usual amicus amount, the counsel, so the court will hear a full 30 minute argument on behalf of the constitution. i will tell you that the affordable care act had come before the court in a romney administration, i thing would've been perfectly appropriate for the solicitor general to take in the field of an adverse decision, tell the court that come into governments do this is beyond the power of congress, but you're leading the democratic leader have an amicus to argue for but i don't think it would've been anything wrong

with the government, in the rare case where you have a major policy decision. and where i think the president is involved, i think when you don't defend a law at that level, the president needs to be involved as he was here. the president said, i'm making a major constitutional policy judgment that we don't want to defend this or do want to defend us. i think that's -- >> in the buckley v. valeo case, the campaign finance case in 1976 that got a lot of his campaign finance stuff going, the government filed three briefs. the federal election commission filed a brief, the justice, the government by the justice department filed a brief, and it was a solicitor general's brief. and i always thought as solicitor general that was a pretty crazy thing to do, and i promised the justices of the supreme court as long as i am solicitor general you are only going to get one brief on behalf of the government. but this gets into that sort of thing when there's dispute within the government whether or

not some law is constitutional or not. i guess we're spending an awful lot of time understanding but it's for geeks like us, it's really fascinating stuff. and it will be fascinating to the justices. >> let me add one point, just to justify the amount of time we spend on a. i think is critical to the role of the court, because in my view, marbury v. madison stands for the proposition that the court has the authority out of all the institutions to say, the president, the congress, the courts have the authority to make a definitive resolution of a lot of the constitution. for one reason only. they have a job to do. that job is resolving disputes between litigants are coming to court with the real lawsuits, and in carrying out the responsibility they have to apply the law. and the constitution is law, that was the key part, law by litigants. not like a star-spangled banner or the pledge of allegiance but it is really law. duluth standard requirements of

the warren court in cases like taxpayers challenging expenditures in support of religion, targets on its evidence is because the to declare the law of the constitution with you make up a case. and that i think would distort what the proper role of the court is in resolving disputes among litigants, which is why it's so important to decide whether they really are litigants for the states and the outcome. >> and today the supreme court decided 5-4, hotly contested division that media groups and other groups challenging the surveillance under the foreign intelligence surveillance act of non-us citizens abroad whether certain media groups to say that we communicate with these people and similar conditions are going to be picked on the boards and wanted a declaration that provision that allowed the program to go forward was unconstitutional if the supreme court decided 5-4 that it was not standing. it was too speculative to

grandstanding but hotly contested descent i think justice breyer. very interesting, so it's very current on their schedule. >> let's turn to the other incredibly important case before, the constitutionality of the voting rights act, section five. walter, congress first passed the voting rights act 47 years ago. a lot has changed since then, for the better. is it still necessary to ask why do you think it is still necessary for 16 states that are fully or partially covered jurisdictions under section five distillate to go to the federal government before they can get their voting changed? >> this is an enormous question and it's certainly understandable that times have changed since 1965. i think tonight and 65 voting rights act may be the single most important act of the national congress, perhaps ever. and it was strong medicine.

it required, this is just setting aside, required the covered jurisdictions to go to washington, d.c. to a court of the attorney general's before the law to go into effect. this is really extraordinary. it was actually the proposal that james madison made and fought for a across the board. he thought all state law should be submitted first to congress before being effective but he was truly -- this was part of that and it was strong medicine. and i think it was doubtful that time, very dramatic in person into what the court thinks of as the sovereignty and dignity of the states would be the same as a matter of first impression. now it has become more routine. there is pretty good evidence that the government puts in the record of a continuing problem of legislation or local acts,

ordinances, whatever, cancellation of waiting periods of hourly voting et cetera, that have an effect on voting that that is disproportionate. >> in all of those jurisdictions speak with here's the question. two questions. maybe you justify the burden, and that is sort of revisiting the 1965 decision. i think probably the more serious question the one that would more hotly debated is what about the fact that they didn't update the coverage formula from 1974? to use the same exact coverage formula, which was based upon voting statistics, registration, et cetera from that period of time. and the attacks in the defense of quote out of date formula would be a graduate seminar in political science, and it could well be that the better political science or methodology

raised would go to those who critique the formula to be too far off. but it's not a graduate seminar in statistical methodology. and the reason that there was a very strong, enormously practical political reason why congress didn't reopen and redo the coverage formula. and that is, it's much easier for average jurisdiction to accept the facts are covered because there was a history. everybody knows about history including in the coverage jurisdiction. i learned in one county in north olympic everybody knows about the history. it's not a present accusation that, to use the historic formula. and to reopen it and decided if you are the worst discriminato discriminators, would have crashed the whole project. history has its claim, and when we in the south and all -- now all have civil rights to us, the idea if you're covered because

that's part of your history and to redo it to make it better and to refine it, one or more justices have proved more of the reach of coverage when the, seems to me awfully schoolmarmish of the court in its relationships to the congress of the united states which has made a political judgment that you have set up -- i think the way to defend it is to say look, the default is we're just going to use just the historic formula we always used, because we have an accepted pattern. we have a bailing for jurisdiction i can be added to because it's bound to be discriminating, and we have an opt out. lord knows we wish the op that was easy. if you start with a default with an opt in and opt out and say that was the best practical political solution, to me the best defense is the court should be getting into the business of micromanaging what is really a large, basic, fundamental

decision of the best political way to resolve this problem going forward. >> well now, ma this is going to be argued tomorrow, right? >> that is correct. >> and the last time it was before the court wishes a couple of years ago, in the northwest austin case, don't have that right? of the supreme court sounded from the argument, i think i was there, like you're going to toss out section five. and then at the last minute, the last day of the term they rendered his decision, or close to the lastly, in which they dubbed the issue. the chief justice wrote the opinion, ducking come of this very question and found a way around it by construing the statute in a way that was a bit of a stretch. but he ducked that question. why was it docked then when it sounds so much like they were going to face up to it as a result of what you are during the oral argument?

maybe does one put the slip to wear something like that. you never know about these things. but in the chief justice's opinion, he talks about the fundamental principle of people sovereignty among the states. and that may or may not be something that comes back with respect to this, but it is the underlying question of, of course states get treated different under the commerce clause because it is brighter, whiter, fletcher, all kinds of reason for that sort of thing. but from a political standpoint to the pick out certain states and oppose in a sense a continuing bad of wrongness, discrimination forever and ever because it's not politically easy to change it, or it's not, and it's not politically easy for the courts to get into that raises that question of equal sovereignty. i came up a chance that same principle in connection with a case that i'm handling involving something called -- which is congressional statutes that

prohibit states from permitting sports gambling. probably you all know about this. but what that statute does, not only does it with the burden on states to break up something of the federal government has chosen not to regulate by putting the burden on the date which raises a tenth amendment issue but it has an exemption for a couple of states but pretty good has exemption for nevada. the question is should michigan be the only place where cars are made? should nevada be the only place where you can bet on the outcome of the super bowl? and is that discrimination against the state? are not try to answer this, although an advocate on one side of the issue or not, but that sort of an important issue here, the degree to which congress can pick out certain states for more favorable, less favorable treatment, not connected with actual geographic facts on the ground that justify the discrimination.

>> why don't we take a quick detour to criminal law, issue important for you. earlier this morning, probably the most important criminal law of the term was argued by maryland chief deputy. the case of maryland v. king and the issue is whether the fourth amendment is violated when the state takes a dna sample from people who are arrested but not yet convicted. i know you been involved in the case of it spent just a little bit. i filed a brief, friend of the court brief on behalf of of individuals who are in the field and who feel that it is right that maryland have this, states have visibility. if you arrest someone, none of you have been arrested, ever, but you probably have heard that people having been arrested and having to submit to their fingerprints and things like that. the argument in defense of the dna statute is that this is a way of identification.

it records what happened when you arrested, much more elaborate than anything in fingerprints do, and then, but it's not connected with -- the person was arrested for assault, and his dna was taken not because of the need to connect the dna or his identity with the assault i think is pretty clear that he did act, whichever way he was charged with. but he was then used to identify him in connection with a sexual assault, or a sexual crime of some sort that had taken place some years before. and now he was arrested and convicted of that, he is saying that was an invasion of his fourth amendment. there was no warrant. you don't have any reasonable basis without a warrant to take that identification from the. it is intrusive. it requires a swab in the mouth, although i think there are other ways of doing this. and i thought it was argued today, and then come you're getting a report and maybe

report on that, but i don't know how to become a. i thought the state of the better of the argument. but what this is interesting as seems to me and we talked about this last year, released in another forum we talked about the gps device that was attached to the drug dealers car here in washington, d.c. and there was a warrant but the warrant expired and then the tracking of the alleged drug dealer, the alleged drug dealers on trial for the third time just last month. >> i represented -- [laughter] >> so so far walter has helped keep them out of jail. [laughter] the interesting thing about this comment and the supreme court decided 920 to overturn the search -- nine-zero to overturn the search in the case but justice scalia saw it as sort of a trespass. i think walter helped get there on this because they attach the

device to the guys car. and justice scalia, he said that doesn't work. you can't imagine all the different ways in which the science is taking a pic yet have a reasonable expectation of privacy. that's going to work. and it brings to bear all of the technology that we have now, none of which was even imagine in their wildest dreams, not even by joules burn or anything like that, along time ago when the fourth amendment was put into place. we have these heat sensing devices that tells what you're going something you should not be growing in your house. tracks every minute you make as far as, a lot of our highways o get the cell phone thing that tells where you are. you have cameras industry to record red light violators and speaking. with all of these technologies, all this technology now that is challenging the conventional wisdom with the. >> to the fourth amendment. it's creating som somehow fittig

law, justices are really struggling. it's fun to talk about. >> the gps case that i was involved in from last term, and the maryland case and the two dog cases from florida, florida, the canine state, you know, the two florida cases, in this context is quite revealing. the first case, the first of the florida cases involve the dog that, you at a traffic stop the police were already entitled to make. the dog signals and dollars to the car twice, and is wrong both times. there's no contraband of the kind the dog is trained is trained to alert you. spent maybe the guy was rolling in. >> but they did find other

things. spent tennis ball. [laughter] >> but, of course, that doesn't mean you don't have probable cause just because you may want a probable cause to search for a gun and find gambling paraphernalia and a house and that does mean you lack probable cause but what's interesting is the florida supreme court said because of the two false positives and the fact that no record was kept by aldo's handlers of aldo's false positives and false negatives, note that if -- they threw out the search. an opinion by justice giunta said the opinion of the florida supreme court was the antithesis of the totality of the search, it was a good argument made by the state of florida about how this dog was well-trained and there was probable cause to believe it. what struck me about this is -- >> the dog had a great name, too, what was it? >> aldo. >> i like that.

>> the thing that struck me as the florida supreme court didn't rely on this urgency provision of the florida constitution. i think the state had been very lucky that the state supreme court that have the split an approach which is supreme court don't rely upon their own state constitution. now, florida has something that says that this right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be construed in conformity with the fourth amendment of the united states constitution as interpreted by the united states supreme court. so that maybe the answer in florida by the florida supreme court didn't go off on its own. but i wouldn't be surprised if at some point states decide to insulate by making their own state constitutional laws. i'm surprised that they don't. now, what is really interesting, the oral argument in the other party case, jardine, which i thought greg did a terrific job of argued for the state of florida, but the court was very

hostile and unlike the nine-zero approval of the police activities in aldo's case the candidate the oral argument in jardine showed extraordinaire hostilities of the fact that police officer goes up to the door of the house with a dog, no visible suspicion or probable cause, goes up to the house and the dog is trained to sniff and the dog alerts to drugs inside the house. then and the court is really angry about this spend what was this dog's name? >> franky spent i thought the first one --.org. >> frankie is, what's interesting about it is, it's hard for the justices in this across the board. it's breyer, scalia, but i have a very good theory for what's wrong with this because the state of florida kept saying

there's no known trespassing sign, anybody could walk up to the door. you are selling girl scout cookies committee going door-to-door to canvas canvas ce you're free to walk up to the door. you are perfectly free to have a signed with you. there's no sign that says no dogs allowed. if there was one it was a this is a blow house. [laughter] so it's understandable that the one house on the block this has no drug-sniffing dogs allowed. [laughter] they were searching for a doctrine but i think that's because, as in jones, the court can proceed with their own interest. they can imagine being in the position. a number of reporters showed up at chief justice warren burger's house at midnight one night to ask him some question and burger king down in his bathrobe with a shotgun to meet the reporter. so they can see some coming up to the front door of the house is. because the trial counsel was arguing for jones, we have done the briefing with steve lavar, i

thought a little more accountable to record the interviews, the gps case was argued, i ended by saying the government's position is upheld, any law enforcement officer, state or federal in the greater washington area can put detection device on the undersidotherside of a car of af the supreme court for any reason whatsoever, no reason at all, we just want to know what the justices go when they leave the court at the end of the day. and i knew that they would use the quick, and they did. he says may it please -- and weight, counts, before go farther, is it your position to any officer of the greater metropolitan area can -- [laughter] and michael, we learned two things. was at chief justice listens to npr on his way to work. [laughter] we also learned michael does not. [laughter] because he said justices of this

court? and she said, yes. justices of this court. and he said well, there's no expectation privacy -- so the answer is yes. the answer is yes. case is over. [laughter] at that point i turned my counsel and said, you know, just be cautious in your argument. we are home free from this point. i think there's something in these cases about whether the justices can perceive themselves, almost have empathy with the situation. and that's why courts have been quite pervasive of police practices dealing with sort of drug dealing on the street corners or in the alleys, where they're unlikely to be. [laughter] >> walter has done a new way to do enemy this brief without even using any paper, you know? >> that's what i think, that's where these cases are interesting at this juncture. >> and my impression data very quickly about the argument ties

in with something that the fed which is, these cases are becoming harder for the government and in particular justice scalia has not been a regular friend for the government and fourth amendment cases. he also was with a majority in a recent case where the united states laws 6-3, and i gather that he was giving maryland a hard time today. it's going to be quite a close case but it could be the states, the government prevail. if we pick up justice breyer and ginsburg, though -- i think i may be getting it roughly right, we will see but i think the concern about, well, i do think expect to be arrested and the subject but i do think it connects to the high tech u-turns or the orwellian concerns what we do with this information.

>> the states, maryland did an excellent job in this case. but i also thought, i looked at the amicus brief, everyone of the jurisdiction joins -- california join. really an excellent brief. the case for having a larger dna databases a powerful. we have it within our power to eliminate race, at least a large power. we're not going to choose to do that but it is our choice. if you had relatively universal dna, you would in 24 hours be able to apprehend anybody who engaged in rape. others could be tested and matched against the database. we are making the choice about how effective we want to be able to respond to violent assaults, and particularly the sexual assaults, and at what price and both privacy we are willing to pay. but there's a very powerful

argument that we've got to realize this is a choice, and the fact of this case, and i think the briefing to give her some of the forensic people that use it to counter rape make the case very powerfully for how, what an important law enforcement to this. and i was persuaded by the briefings that was a right answer. >> on the other side of course sure, you can have very really effective law enforcement devices. if you have cameras everywhere, you're on all the time and blah, blah, blah. so if that's what they're concerned about, and there might be some demographics involved in that. i mean, this is a younger court than it was six or seven years ago, but it's still, it's not really young people on the court who are more familiar with all of the electronic devices and all of the things that all of our grandchildren know about. and so it's kind of comedy, computer cases, patent cases and stuff like that, they have a little bit of time struggling

with it. it's a different era. >> counter example, frankie, the dog at the door case to say it's just a dog. ease using this lung capacity that dogs have had since time immemorial. there's nothing new here. this is very -- spent just to be able to train police officers to smell as good as dogs. i mean, to sniff as good as dogs. [laughter] >> well, you are so mean were cases that i would love to discuss with walter intent, but, unfortunately, think we are at the end of our time. police, well, before we give them a round of applause let me first give them both a token of our appreciation. [laughter] and let us thank them so much for joining us again. >> thank you. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> we were going to take you live to the annual american israeli public affairs committee conference known as aipac. however, due to technical issues were unable to bring it to you live. we will have it on later today in our schedule and online on c-span's video library at c-span.org. coming up at 11 a.m. eastern, a discussion hosted by the brookings institution with european parliament member and former prime minister of belgium. he will address the political and economic future of the european union. "newsweek" identities contributing editor david fromm will moderate. that is live at 11 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> do you find that washington

and silicon valley on two different planets? >> i think that's probably fair to say. you know, i think the ties are probably getting closer. these days than it was before. but i think in many ways and for a long time folks in silicon valley didn't really care i want to know was going on in washington, and likewise i think the folks in washington have sometimes been tone deaf to what's going on in silicon industry. >> technology columnist at the "san jose mercury news" as he tours this year's ces international consumer electronics show tonight on "the communicators" at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> next, highlights from the fed recession of question time in the australian parliament. prime minister julia gillard and cabinet members answer questions on the us government economy and the recent impose minerals resource rent tax, more commonly

known as the mining tax. this 40 minute program is courtesy of australia public affairs panel. >> hello. over the next half hour we're going to show you some highlights of the lady sitting of the australian parliament are just different christmas the government broke a promise to return to the budget. something it had guaranteed for, well, about three years but the money just wasn't there any end this broken promise dominated the start of parliament issue. the opposition went straight on the attack speed my question is to the prime minister. i remind the prime minister of her statement that returning to budget to surplus, ethical, is the best thing we can do to help families with cost of living pressures. when now does the government

commit to produce a budget surplus and thereby help the struggling families of austral australia? >> the prime minister has the gulf. >> thank you very much, and to the leader of the opposition i addressed this question about surplus and the nation's budget position when i spoke at the national press conference last wednesday. and the circumstances within which we find ourselves is one that really hasn't been experienced for a long time in australia's national life. that is, the amount of government revenues is being generated through unit of gdp is at its lowest since the early 1990s. and it is lower than was expected by treasury. a difference before the days of the gses.com but even since the days of the gsc. now, there are a number of

facts, some domestic, some of them global which relating to these results. and it's important anybody that seems be taken safely in economic debate. to understand the factors that are on the australian revenue. of course, we continue to see weakness in the global economy. we continue to see remarkable strength in our currency and the dollar. that remarkable strength in our currency is persistent and even though we have seen a reduction in our trade and even though we have seen a reduction in interest rates. orthodox economic models would tell you that a reduction and returns to trade, a reduction in interest rates would likely stay our currency lose value, but it has consisted at a high very high level. what that means of course is that for those industries that are competing, export oriented wetherbee manufacturing, whether

they tourism, whether it be services sectors like international education, there is a lot of pressure from the australian dollar, and that pressure is translating into pressure on profitability. we are also at a resources boom where we are seeing widespread and large investment. it's not at this stage that we see the maximum return from resources. that happens when you move from the teacher in business face to the peak production face. so that i set of facts, some encyclical, some of them not anticipated which are pressing on the amount of revenues the hit by government. this is a challenge for everyone in our nation's life and one that requires careful work and thinking through. it certainly means that will be adhering to our medium-term fiscal strategy as a treasure has outlined. that requires the outfitting of

expenditure by saving in the forward period, and i would recommend the same strategy to the labor of the opposition when and if he produces any -- >> the prime minister's time has expired. please be removed from the advisory bucks. the leader of the opposition has the call. >> how does the prime minister reconcile the answer she's just given with their predilection declaration that there would be a surplus in the current financial year? now is, no butts. it will happen. and i ask again when will this government finally deliver a surplus of? >> the prime minister has the call. >> thank you very much, speaker. and to the leader of the opposition, whether or not he likes it, there are these things called facts, and they can't be washed away and they can't be

ignored. and when we come to dealing with the facts, what we have seen -- [shouting] >> i write down in revenues from what was expected in terms of treasury estimates. that is, treasury during the absolute best he can come the absolute best they can. but the right and in revenues, that's effect. and it needs to be accounted for obvious by the government but it also needs to be accounted for by the opposition if it wants to be taken seriously in any sort of economic debate. in these circumstances, there is a choice and the choice the government has made it to -- is to make sure maintain a focus on jobs and growth. ..

>> the 366 occasions promised a surplus. how can the australian people trust the prime minister at her word when she said on all of those occasions that in order to make life easier for australia, she'd make sure the government lives within its means. >> the member of north sydney will remove his prop. the members of north sydney, you can go at the end of the question, meanwhile, remove the

props. the prime minister has the floor. >> i thank you very much. i thank you for the question, and i can say the raising have involved as well, and congratulations to him, well done. to the members of north sydney, i refer him to the early answer in the house. i refer him to my statements at the national press club, and you'll ask him in what should be a year with the time and the space and the certainty for a policy debate to deal with sophistication necessary in the economic debate before the nation. we find ourselves in a circumstance with a unit of gdp, less revenue returnedded from the government than any time since the 1990s. other democracies and developed countries are also struggling with this phenomena. now, there are no doubt cyclical factors at play, and as i indicated in my national press

club speech, and as the assistant treasurer has said on more than one occasion, there might be some things about the accounting or profits in the modern age that need to be sorted about and sorted in the context of the g20. we have to deal with the facts, and dealing with the facts and dealing with the revenue right now, treasury doing their business, their projections after the gse, we've seen huge write downs from before, and there's been huge writedowns again that treasury did not forecast or predict. in the circumstances that those writedowns, you've got a clear choice to make. do you focus on jobs and growth or don't you? this is the choice that we face when the global financial crisis was at its high, and we, as a government, said we are focused on jobs and growth. now, i respect that the

opposition made the opposite decision, and that's their judgment call not to focus on jobs and growth, and that is why they opposed our economic stimulus package. there is a divide here. we focus on jobs and growth. the opposition is committed to the opposite of not focusing on job and growth. there's another moment to make a decision. do you focus on jobs and growth? we are focusing on jobs and growth. if the members of north sydney want to leave the economic debate, if nay don't want to focus on jobs and growth, that's a amount of the human who is able to account for it. there's nothing more important than the jobs of working people. they put themselves there, and we'll put the jobs first now. >> there's 5 # 00 occasions that

the treasureer and yourself said there's going to be a surplus. i refer to her to a statement in 2011. you can't run the country if you can't manage its budget. given the government can't run the budget, prime minister, shouldn't you just give up trying to run the country? >> sir member of north sidney, the prime minister has the talking. >> thank you very much. to the member of north sydney, first, if he wants to be taken seriously by anyone, then he needs to deal with the facts, and he knows, he knows that what we have seen with the government budget is a government writedown. he should acknowledge that. they -- there's the man from north sidney, and i refer him to every statement made by treasury about revenue right now.

we have adhered to a median term fiscal strategy to contain expenditures. what is happening in the government's budget is not increased expenditure. it is revenue coming down, and there's no amount of bellowing, no amount of shaking his head, no amount of denying the fact that it's the member of the north sidney away from that. we have to deal with that. yes, we do, but i will hold the member from north sydney toking the for the words he said today. i take that to mean that he will publish all castings of all policies in a timely way, and he can start by giving -- >> order! >> full reports of every policy utter rains made by the leader of the opposition today because not once, but in the 2010 election, as the opposition produces a policy with proper time or credible savings. >> the time expired.

members of north sidney is talking to table several documents. >> i am talking to table several documents. >> the members of north sidney -- >> 166 promises from the prime minister in writing about -- i'm seeking to table 366 promises from our old mate, the treasurer, about promises for assertion. >> leader of the house? >> i don't like him. [laughter] >> leave is not granted. could someone please remove the documents from -- before i call the members from north sidney, i want to recognize in the chamber today, the former prime minister, the right honorable rob hawk who is with us today, and we'd like to welcome him. the member from north sydney. >> i join with you, madam speaker in offering my

constituents, and first time the prime minister delivered a surplus. [cheers and applause] >> and it's a member of north sydney who has the call. [inaudible conversations] >> when i have silence, the member has the talk. >> my question is for this prime minister. i refer to the prime minister's statement yesterday that the amount of government revenue is, quote, far lower than expected by treasury. given that rev new this year is $37 billion larger than last year, and given tax revenues is $18 billion higher than treasury forecast in the darkest days of the gfc, how can the prime minister claim that a surplus promise is broken because the government is not collecting

enough tax off australians? >> you have the floor. >> thank you very much. let me explain it to the shadow treasurer so he can follow it. first and foremost to the shadow treasurer that makes lying to him number one. as percentage of gdp, this is a far lower taxes government than the government he served as the worst choicest minister -- i far lower taxing government as a percentage of gdp. number two, referring to the revenue write downs against treasury's predictions. i refer him -- >> order! >> i refer him to the mid year economic and fiscal outlook. he may not have obtained a copy. he may not have read it, but i suggest that he does. i refer him to the revenue writedowns made transparent at that time, and -- >> the members --

>> and refer to publicly by the treasurer of wayne swan. i also refer him to the undeniable fact that as i presented your gdp per unit of gdp, taxes at revenues to government is at the lowest percentage now since the early 1990s, and that that low recovery of revenue is happening more slowly than treasury predicted. now, i take it from in line of questioning that the opposition believes its to be in a position to say that had it governed during the days of the global financial crisis, it could have produced a surplus budge every year, notwithstanding the global financial crisis, not within -- and the hit to revenues we are continuing to see. well, if the shadow treasurer

and the leader of the opposition had truly think that is the position, they can abound themselves -- if they were in government, and given it's all dealing with past speakers, there's no reason at all while tomorrow they cowmplet -- couldn't walk into the parol limit and table what they would have done in the budget situation to have surpluses in those financial years. every figure is at their disposal, did not for the questions, just coming to be and table the document. if they will not do that, let's not hear any of this notary public -- nonsense ever again. >> questions of the prime minister following her answer. in this 2009 budget papers, revenue is $321 billion. this year projected now $339 billion. prime minister, do you believe that australians are not paying enough taxes now?

>> the prime minister -- order! order! the minister is denying the prime minister the call. so is the treasurer. the prime minister now has the call. >> thank you very much. i'd remind the shadow treasurer it's 2013 # so i'm not sure why he's wondering around his 2009 figures. maybe it's time to catch up, 2013, and, apparently, he loves to go on about these issues in 2009. well, there's a few years of work to catch up on, the kind of performance of what we see from the shadow treasurer thinking deeply about policy, actually producing figures and costing, and, actually pointing to savings, apparently, beyond him so aside the shadow treasurer, not 2009, it's 2013. get yourself the most recent information. i say to the shadow treasurer --

>> the time resumes to speak. many opposition has a point of order. >> madam speaker, the prime minister can try to answer the question. >> business resumes the state. the prime minister has the call. >> and i was just coming to the question of tax on the question of tax. i am very pleased that this government turned in a performance of less taxes than the howard government. yes, the howard government was high taxing, yes, it was. yes, the shadow treasurer was part of the high taxing government, and, at the same time, ripping people's wages to shreds through work choices. that is the legacy of the opposition. fortunately, through relationships and fairness, and a lower taxation system as presented to gdp, we've done better for families around the nation, and i'm so proud that we have.

>> the broken place to return the budget of surplus was bad enough, making matters worse for the government is the year it began the controversial mining tax it had to reduce return far less than it hoped for. the forecast was for a $2 billion return from the mining tax on mining profits, and it returned only $126 million in its first six months of operation. it led to questions about whether the government would look elsewhere to raise money. taxes and income taxes. >> my question is for the treasurer. i remind the treasurer that the mining tax raised $126 million in six months, and it was budgeted for a billion over that period. given the tax office spent over $50 million administering the tax, will the treasurer now face reality, admit defeat, and join with the coalition to abolish this foul tax?

>> treasurer has the floor. >> i thank the treasurer for the question, but it goes to the revenues forecast, and i wish to address the question of revenue forecast immediately. >> the members might take responsibility for observing the standing order. the treasurer has the call. >> it was not in the shadow treasurer's question that somehow the treasury forecast can never change, and the fact is it change frequently. in fact, we bring down a budget, an update, and, of course, a match in revenue heads of state come in monthly. there's nothing unusual about this. for example, when those opposites were in power, revenue was adjusted upward by massive amounts. unexpected, rivers of gold, over $300 billion, something like three years, and those forecasts

were adjusted. now, the truth is this. that at the end of last year and through the sec half of last year, there was a dramatic collect in commodity price, a dramatic collect, and that collect in commodity prices impacted upon profits, and when profits go up, red taxes go up, when profits go down, resource red taxes go down. now, for those always opposed, i resort to red taxes. any amount of revenue from a resource red tax is a direct confront to those opposite who go down on beamedded knee to -- bended knee to the mining billionaire friends. let's be clear they don't support taxes, and, in fact, the attitude expressedded -- expressed over there prevail over the last 25 years, we never would have had what raised $28 billion, but that's was a tax

proposed by those opposite just as this tax is now being opposed by those opposite. the truth is that prices have come down dramatically, but as the tax commissioner said on friday, a partial recovery in commodity prices has been reflected in a partial recovery in revenue. now, the fact is that this country needs to have resources for the children and great grandchildren. everyone on this side of the house is proud of the fact that we understand the australian people have owned min rail resources 100%, and we're all entitled to some of the super profits that flow from those. those opposite is to get down on bended knee to the mining billionaires, get down on bended knee, so what we are seeing here is another misrepresentation, an attack on good public policy to hide the fact that they have a vicious attack on the living

standard, the working australians planned by getting rid of the tax threshold, by not -- >> the time expired. the members on supplementary. >> the question is to the treasurer. given the treasurer redesigned the mining tax, and will they rule out redining the tax again before the election on the 14th of september? >> the treasurer has the call. >> as the prime minister indicated before, there's already a process in place going through the federal treasury and sphait treasury to look at the issue of royalty. that was announced following the finance minister's -- i treasury made it at the end of last year, but, apparently, this is another fact, another fact that the shadow treasurer is not aware of. the fact is, as i said before, a dramatic impact in terms of commodity prices on the revenues, a somewhat small

recovery in the revenue as a consequence of the small recovery in commodity prices. what i said on friday, and i'll say it again, is that we'll look at the performance of the tax in light of the prices in a normal way. >> the minister asked the question. >> by the tax department. >> yes, sir, question to the prime minister. i remind her that the members of griffin stated this morning, and i quote, the government needs to be mindful of what undertaking they've begin to the mining industry in response to cause to change the mining tax. given the heads of agreement the prime minister signedded with the mining industry and states all territory is credible against the resources tax liability will see a shore of the mining industry at her promise will not now be broken. >> they show they are months and months and months behind the economic debate. truly astonishing that he would

walk into this parol -- parliament today and pretend discussions between the head of treasury and state counterparts about treatment of royalties is somehow news or only nearly reported today or newly announced yesterday. this is all absurd, completely absurd. the leader of the opposition as we know is not interested in economic matters, and you couldn't get a better demonstration of it. >> the opposition might be called out quickly if she don't obey the standing orders. a point of order. >> madam speaker, she was asked if she stood by the mining business. it's a yes or no answer. >> the prime minister has the court. >> thank you very much, speaker, and i was just trying to catch the leader of the opposition up

on months and months and months of economic dialogue he clearly missed out on. let's start at the beginning. i, working with the deputy prime minister and the minister resources is in agreement with the mining industry. we then had a policy transition group overseen by don, and we then brought the legislation to the parliament. the legislation passed. we implemented the tax. there was a question of unsustainable royalty increases by state government. we made that part of what we are. they reviewed it, and, of course, there's people involved in the review, and they produced a report, and following the production of the report, it's been clear publicly, that federal treasury has been in dialogue with the heads of state treasury. there's nothing new about that, and anybody that kicked up the financial review of the

australian newspaper of more days than today would have. able to tell you that complete story, you know, months and months ago so the leader of the opposition once again -- >> order! >> through the form of question, and he's carrying on in this parliament just shows how deeply uncomfortable he is and how deeply ignorant he is of economic matters. >> [inaudible] >> the leader of the opposition will resume his seat. table the documents. >> everyone knows -- [inaudible] >> leader of the house will withdrawal -- the leader of the house will withdrawal.

>> didn't even say what it was to withdrawal. >> i'm not taking the cry of childish from anybody in this parliament today. you should all be wary. i can hear everything you mutter under your breath, and i'm finding it very unpleasant. the management of opposition business on point of order, i'm assuming. >> yes, madam speaker, just on the matter that transpired, is it normal when you ask for a yes or no answer to always insult the manager of opposition? resume the statement. >> the attorney regime is not assisting. i would ask the manager of opposition business to reflect on his statements at every point of order taken in this place and for preambles in questions as well. >> the question is to the treasurer. i refer to the treasurer to cite

don, the former head of the resource minister's on transition group on the mining tech did actually make, and i quote, you don't want to start double taxing the resources companies. as it is, looking at the sovereign risk and starting to wonder what's going on. will the treasurer address growing uncertainty in the mining sector by ruling out a further redesign of the mining tech. >> treasury has the call. >> look, i do thank the minister for his question, and i think everybody on this side of the house is concerned about how competitive our mining taxation regime is, and the need for that went to the very core of the report. that was produced, and, minister, further, nobody could fundmently disagree with that, and i guess if you are rational and accept the facts, you

wouldn't fundamentally disagree that royalties are inefficient, they discourage investment, and that if we are going to have an effective and form of resource taxation in the country, there was a combination of resource with taxation, and they boil in the regime. possession ofof course, what wet recent times is in some states that detoured investments, and we have punished some companies and punished employment, particularly, in my home state of queensland. now, between the time we announced the nrrt, and we put it in operation, we had -- just served mining investment in our history, in this country. the biggest surge of mining investors in our country which, i think from memory, and i'll take it, an additional 53,000

jobs created in the mining sector. now, why do i make that point? because every one of the people for not breaking the nrrt that it was the opposite, that investment goes out the back door as does jobs and investments and so to -- >> members of the -- [inaudible] >> we do understand that there is interaction between the two, which is why this was the third to the distribution panel, and why it is now being dealt with out an official level between states and federal treasury. that is how it has been dealt with because it is an important consideration, interaction between the two. that point was made in the report at some length, which, by the way, was a public process, a transparent process, which consulted right around the country on various important reports, and, of course, we're working within those parameters because what we want for

australia is a resource part line that generates jobs, generates investments, and we make sure of the consequence of that that all us train yals benefit in that investment. this is a fundamental difference of opinion because those opposites think one dollar of resource tax is too much because they are down on bended knee to the mining billionaires. >> do you say yes or no to the mining tax? yes or no? >> prime minister has the floor. >> thank you very much. in question time, we have no plans to change. we have a process that's been ongoing for sometime now of what the leader of opposition.

>> they never increase the rate to broaden the base and remove the payments to the over 60 #s. also, reminding of the statement last year that, quote, we ruled it out. what does the treasurer claim this morning asked on increases to income tax that he never ruled anything out when it's simply untrue? >> you have the floor. >> delighted to retain the question on tax from the shadow treasurer, absolutely delighted, because like everyone on this side of the house, i'm proud of the record when it comes, in particular, to personal income tax. 47 billion dollars worth of income tax cuts, and, of course, the measure i'm most proud of and most important, particularly in terms of fairness to the low paid workers is the trickling of the tax free threshold. it pays a dollar of tax earning

$18200. a combination of those measures means that someone who is on $50,000 a year is paying $2 ,000 less in taxes each and every year. that's a good record. what we understand that it is very important, the working families to get a fair go in the tax system. of course, the only one advocating increase in tax in this house is, in fact, the leader of the opposition denies it this morning, but worse than that, even worse than that, those opposite have said very, very clearly that they intend to abolish the tripling of the tax free threshold, so what that means is a tax hike for six

million australians. >> return to your seat. member of north sydney. >> he's talking about hypocrisy in that regard -- >> the member will resume his seat. the question went to taxation. the treasurer has the call. >> because what he's really pointing to is those opposite do have a plan to smash hard working australian families by abolishing the tripling of the tax threshold, and on top of that, they've got the tax as well. the ones denied by the leader of the opposition this morning. the fact is -- the fact is that they have a $70 billion trade in their budget's bottom line. there's better policies to smash hard working australians.

>> the member for north sydney on supplementary. >> i asked the treasurer will he rule out increasing income taxes in this year's budget, yes or no? >> the treasurer has the call. >> well, as i said before, the only party advocating increase in income tax in this house is those opposite. we will not increase perm income taxes. what we'll do is continue to reform the system so people on low incomes get a fair go. >> madam speaker, my question is to the prime minister, and i refer her to the treasurer's statement that certainty is paramount when it comes to the retirement income system. we want people to have confidence that they can say in the way in which they have in the past. to end uncertainty around insinuation, will the prime minister join the coalition and rule out changes to the tax

treatment of australia's 500,000 self-managed fund? >> the prime minister has the call. >> thank you very much, and let me say to the leader of the national party, i most certainly will not join with the coalition in attacking the benefits of low income australians or join with the leader of the opposition in attacking 2.1 million working women. i will not join with the leader of the opposition in attacking more than 3 million low income australians and atagging -- attacking their retirement savings. we will not do that. i will not join with the leader of the opposition in attacking super inknewuation for working australians and preventing contributions from rising from 9% to 12%. i want to see working australians able to retire with a decent retirement income, and i will not join with the leader of the opposition in -- >> the prime minister will

return to the question before the chair. >> well, they are entitled to the contrastment on this side, 9-12, on this side, concern for australians, on this side, i plan to support low income working -- >> the prime minister will resume the speech, and the manager of opposition bids on a point of order. >> madam speaker, how can the prime minister accuse of opposition of hurting low income super insinuation, when it was this contribution -- >> will resume his seat, and he is warned! do you wish to take a point of order irrelevant, that is one thing, but the full points of order is not an opportunity to enter into debate. the prime minister has the call. >> talk about stability and uncertainty and super insinuation, and i'm dratting

the question. i can say to working australians under this government they will see their super inknewuation contribution drive from 9% to 10%. i can say to low income working australians, disproportionally women, they will benefit to see them with their super insinuation. yes, there are, yes, there are a tax on certain tip -- kernty and stability for the system, and they come from the leaders of the oppositions' plan to attack the super insinuation of working people. why? because he's always thought super insinuation was a course. his words, not mine. >> the debate over tax and spending set to dominate all the way until the election now set for september 14 in australia. see you next time. for now, i'm david speers. thanks for your company. ♪

>> host: joining us on the phone is francis rose with frat news radio, an anchor there, and we want to talk this morning about the logistics of sequesteration. what is happening in washington? >> caller: well, right now, there's a lot of confusion, greta. agencies are trying to figure out how they are beginning to present their plans to employees. we've only heard from a couple federal agencies. the defense department talked about how they would work sequesteration and logistics a couple weeks back last week of the internal revenue service, and the environmental protection service talked about it, and i was struck over the weekend by how many people don't know what's going to happen. they don't know how cuts affect them as employees and how they'll affect the programs they work on. >> host: how will they be

affected or thought midded? >> caller: by e-mail, but it's possible some employees will be notified face-to-face, but so far, all the contact we're hearing about for sequesteration possibilities or notes that is by e-mail because this is an organization where it's not practice call to communicate information face-to-face. >> host: do we know how the federal government is going to determine furloughs? >> caller: each agency does that itself because each agency decides what it's going -- what the mission is mission critical, what people have to stay on to keep the government functioning, and what people have to or would be able to be out of work for a period of time, but that's the big difference between, i think, the ways that employees are approaching it this time around and the way that they approach

shut down because shut down, of course, means come in tomorrow morning, give us your blackberries and stuff, and don't expect to be here for awhile. the furlough situation will be different because, first of all, it won't be happening for at least 30 days because that's the period of time by law that the federal employees have to be notifieded they are eligible for furloughs, and so that's tempting a different feel about this is my sense of it. >> host: okay. well, here's the "baltimore sun" this morning, front page story, impact of cuts to come in april, and the social security administration said it might shoulder across the board spending cuts without sending any of the full-time employees home. >> caller: yeah. that's a good example, greta, of how the agencies determine on a one by one basis how they are going to do this. to counter what the social security administration looks at, you heard the defense department saying it's -- they made it sound like a lock that

as soon as it's possible for them, they were going to furlough employees one day a week. that's a 20% pay cut for civilian employees at the defense department. each agency is going to have autonomy, and each agency releases plans on individual basis. >> host: well what about benefits for all employees? >> caller: it's not going to affect benefits like health insurance or retirement contributions or anything to the extent if doesn't impact pay. now, for the employees who receive matches, for example, on the thrift savings plans, accounts, the federal equivalent of the 401(k) # plan. if you don't contribute the pay because you're furloughed, you don't contribute much to the retirement plan or receiving much of a match from your agency. that will have an effect, but that's, obviously, a long term effect, but things like health insurance and so on won't be touched by this at all. >> host: so what's the difference between federal

workers and contractors for the federal government when it comes to sequesteration? >> caller: the main difference is contract employees don't have that 30-day protection necessarily that federal employees have. if a contractor decides because of sequesteration, they expect to see the business go down, and they decide today they want to perform layoffs, they are free to do that. the difference -- another difference is the dollar value of sequesteration does not impact contractors for some period of time because any money that the federal government's already obligated, that is any money that they've already signed the deals for with companies, will be honored. that money's essentially already spent, and so that's not affected by sequesteration. one side effect that i'm hearing from some people in the business, the contracting business community in washington is they may look at sequesteration as an opportunity to do cuts, layoffs, furloughs,

whatever, that they were going to do anyway or they wanted to do anyway, be able to call them sequesteration cuts, and shrink their businesses anyway because they are looking at not just sequesteration cuts, but the prospect of smaller government budgets for the foreseeable future, and, all right, this is the time to reshape businesses too. >> host: francis rose, we heard a caller say, ask about the image behind me, the capitol, saying the sun's out in washington, doesn't look like sequesteration has much impact. if people are looking for a visual, what and when might they see one? >> caller: well, the way to look at that would be however it impacts a particular citizen. as you mentioned, social security administration, that's one of the most customer facing agency in government. another one is the internal revenue service. look at those agencies and see

if when you try to do business with that agency, are there ours cut back? fewer employees? some national park services are very high profile ones. there's the line about washington monument cuts that whenever the park service would be in danger of budget cuts, they would say, okay, well, maybe we'll have to close the national parks, and that's a very high profile way for citizens to see the impact of budget cuts, so with things like that, and when you start to see longer lines at the airport because there's fewer transportation security administration screeners, those are the ways we expected it manifest itself to the average person. >> host: francis rose with federal news radio, thank you very much. >> caller: thanks for having me. >> i was fascinated by her feminist moves, you know, remember the ladies or you're going to be in trouble. i'm paraphrasing, obviously, but she warned her husband, you

know, you can't rule without including what women want and what women have to contribute, and, i mean, this is 17 00s, she saying that. >> ab gail adams tonight on c-span's history series, first ladies: influence and images, outspoke ben about views on slavery and women's rights providing a window into colonial america and her life with john adams. join in the conversation live tonight at nine eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org.

>> vice president joe biden continued campaign to reduce gun violence with remarks today to the association of attorneys general winter meeting in washington, d.c.. the vice president gave an overview of the administration's agenda to reduce violence and urged states attorneys general to use moral persuasion to build support for the president's plan. this is about 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. all very kind. thank you very much. thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much. [applause] thank you. i appreciate the introduction. i'm delighted to be here. it is true, not only in this organization. in washington, i'm known as

jill's husband, and in delaware, i'm not known anymore. >> thank you very much. thank you, all, for having me here. you mentioned the train, there's only one thing to yours and my benefit with this sequester we're about to face has been decided by me that in order to -- the secret service doesn't like me traveling back and forth to delaware on the train. they conclude it's gives too many opportunities for people to interact with me in a way they wouldn't like to see them interacting, and so they fly me back and forth, but i miss going through baltimore. i miss going think -- through maryland. when i was a senator, i traveled 7940 times back round trips from delaware to washington and back, and so the only thing that's allowed me to get back in the

train now is able to say, look, guys, i got to take the train now. it's cheaper than flying. [laughter] i goat take the train again, and i want to thank you again. look, during my career which is longer than some of you have been alive, i work closely for many, many years, and as 17 years, i was the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee. i have distinction and blame of being either the author or coauthor of major legislation that passed through the congress, and not a single one of those bills from sowled biden crime bill in 1994 through the commission to what we deal with now helped without the cooperation of nag. i mean that sincerely. you've been around a lot. i've been here multiple,

multiple times, but i called on you more than i suspect any chairman of the committee ever has because this organization played, add i said, a -- a vital role in the passage of every significant piece of legislation that came out of the committee. you know, i know you're hearing from tommy west, tom curry, richard cordray who discussed a wide variety of issues that are on your plate every dayment you guys and women as the old expression goes, rubber meets the road, you are accountable at home, and you've gotten a chance to speak to them, but i'm here in the same old capacity in the last 40 years. i'm here to ask for your help. i'm here to ask for your input and help on an issue that seized

the attention of the american people and one that demands action, responsible action. gun safety. all of you, unlike any other legislated -- elected official or oi -- appointed official in your state are cloaked with the moral and legal credibility that no other office holds. the attorneys general's office in different states in variation jurisdictions, each of you are able to operate in an area that's not viewed as a partisan blood bath. you are doing things that affect the health and safety of the state. you have more, more moral persuasion, more clout. i'm not trying to be nice to you. it's a fact. it's a responsibility as well than any legislated officials, i believe in the country. i need your advice and help. i mean that sincerely.

the advice i asked for is, obviously, i'm not going to be -- you're not going to have been able to have me stay with you for a very long time, but i want to invite you, and i'm going to have my staff after available for any ideas youssef mejri have about what i proposed to the president, any constructive criticism you have. i'm answer, to hear, mean it sincerely, and i ask your predecessors. they tell you i mean when i say. know one's ever doubted i mean what i say, but the problem is i say all that i mean. [laughter] that gets me in trouble. [laughter] except in mississippi. [laughter] welcome, all of youceps in your bones, particularly george jeepson of connecticut, john in colorado, jb in wisconsin, tom in arizona, you all feel in dwrr bones what the american people understand, what the tragedy of

sandy hook elementary school has brought to the foreign -- no other thing in my career that i've seen has had such an impact on the profound impact on the psyche of the american people. column bine, virginia tech, tucson, aurora, oak creek, senseless slaughters. the american people want to at least know that we are aware, that we are aware of how unacceptable that behavior is. i'd like to point out that when i passed the first -- i authored the first assault weapons ban and limitation on magazines, and a great friend stood on the friend and said, held up a copy of the newspapers from all across the country redone back in the late 20s of a murder with a boss murdered in a barber

chair, and that made the front page of every paper. he held up the "new york times" of that day in 94, and he went to pay, said b, section page 47, making up the page, but it was the back of the paper, and there was a short article about an entire family wiped out in the bronx in their apartment, mother, father, grandmother, children, and grandchildren wiped out. he said it made page 47 in a paragraph this big. he defined it saying this is defining dee -- deefnss down. well, after aurora, oak hill, columbine to virginia, i wonnerred as a nation whether we define it down by the way we talked about it or didn't talk about it.

sandy hook changed all of that. twenty, twenty innocent babies riddled, riddled with bullet holes. with the press not here, i could tell you what is not public yet, but how gruesome it was. i met with the state troopers who were on the scene. this last week, an impact on them has been prob -- profound. some of them, understandably, needing help. this senseless act not only shocked the conscious of the american people, but i believe it's changed and galvanized the attitude of the american people

demanding concrete action. i've been doing this for a long time. the public mood that has changed. the excuse that is too politically risky to act is no longer acceptable. we cannot remain silent. we have to become the voices of those 20 beautiful children. in the 75 days ago were killed. they can't speak for themselves. you know better than any elected officials. we have to speak for the more than 2,000 people who died at the end of a gun just sense newtown. 2,000 americans.

in 75 days. kate lin cornett, a 20-year-old college student shot and killed in a parking lot after a domestic dispute. aiden, a 4-year-old boy, probably just learning to tie shoes, caught in a drive-by shooting in kansas city. a 15-year-old chicago girl who marched by the president and me on inauguration day waving proudly because she was from the city of chicago, the president's city, shot dead in a park sitting on a swing in a park like a little kid, just the three of her friends, and gang bangers deciding that was their park. gunned her down. janae mcfarland, gunned down

just hours after her president joined the president for a gun safety event in chicago. twenty-five people dead from gun homicides every day in the country, and that doesn't count the scores of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters whose lives have been altered. folks, let me say this as clearly as i can. there's going to be a lot of voices in the debate, but i'm absolutely determined to make sure the loudest voice are the voices of those we lost. we have to speak for them and their families. enough is enough. we have an obligation to act, and, yesterday, the people in the second congressional district of illinois spoke for the first time since newtown. voters sent a clear, unequivocal signal. the voters chose among a field of qualified candidates, a candidate who spoke forcefully for the need for rational gun

safety regulation. they sent a message, not just to the nra, but organizations around the country, electing robin kelly who stood strong for gun safety totally consistent with the second amendment rights. they sent a message. the message is there will be a moral price as well as a political price to be paid for inaction. this is not 1994. people know too much. when i authored the assault women's ban in 1994, some of you know my state of delaware. you know it well, the eastern shore. i had to run the next year. i went up and down every creek in southern delaware that connected the chesapeake bay and the north shore going into hunterman's and fisherman, st. charlie. i'm not doing it. they said i'm taking your

shotgun away. they never ran against me for the assault weapons ban, but said biden wants to take your shotgun. that doesn't work anymore. the public has been desensitized. social media is too extensive. the organized opposition, though, is hoping as time more muchs on, the urges act on gun safety diminishes, and one of the leading opponents at -- won't say where it was because i'm not positive, but at a large meeting recently said he expected, quote, an opponent, the connecticut effect to fade, just have to wait until it's faded away, the connecticut effect. george can tell you it'll never today for the memories of children who lost loved ones in connecticut, will never today for those folks in the region, never fades for the memory of the people of connecticut, and i've noticed, look what the legislation did in colorado.

what is about to do in new mexico. it's a different time, guys. it's a different time. i got news for them. it's not going to fade in the memory of american people. thinks have changed. those who organize the opponents use the same old tactic used against me and others for years relating to rational gun policy, and it -- a gun policy that does nothing to infringe on the second amendment. they throw up question after question, not because they are actually looking for answers, not because they are driven by the facts, not because they are looking for a way forward, but because they look to build roadblocks. for example, they say biden recommends the president, and the president's recommending to the nation is they say we are going after law-abiding citizens. why are we going after law-abiding citizens? we are not. they say assault weapons like the ar15 are needed for

self-protection. they are not. they say it's not about guns. they are just wrong. it is about guns. the facts are no law-abiding citizen's rights will be infringed whatsoever by what we are proposing. the fact are assault weapons and magazines with 30, 50, 100 rounds are unnecessary and dangerous as they put law enforcement at risk by limiting them does not violate the second amendment in any way. there's one expeditiously, and everything we propose is thoroughly consistent with the second amendment rights of every american citizen. first, the court ruled individuals have a right to own a weapon to protect themselves in their open home. that is constitutional law. it's app individual right to protect yourself in your own home. second, these are the prince. s upon which -- principles upon when i laid out

recommendations to the president. second, there's people who can constitutionally be disqualified from owning a gun, criminals, people who are found dangerous to themselves or others, third, there are certain weapons that you can constitutionally, constitutionally bar from being owned by individuals. fourth, this is not only about guns. it's about the coursing of american culture, school safety, mental health. with all this in mind, i met with my -- and along with major cab -- cabinet members i instructed to go to go through everything sitting on a shelf at the department of home lap security to the justice department to the education department, ect., i said, go and come back with the best ideas that have been shelled the last ten years.

with this in mind, we met with every possible stake holder. 229 different groups i met with. compromising multiple members in these groups. 229 governors, mayors, county executives, law enforcement, mental health experts, survivors of gun violence, religious groups, sports organizations, nra, gun owner groups, representatives from the movie and video game industry. we spoke -- i spoke with many of you in this room. there is a generic consensus that emerged on several things. one that we have to act, and, two, the nature of what that action should be. the response i proposed for the president, a document reflecting that consensus backed up by the best data available and the conclusions reached were as follows, and this is what i need

advice on help on if you agree and the advice if you don't agree. first, there's a need for universal background check systems so the intergnarl check system is complete. what value is it if one, two, three, five million people who are under the law deemed incapable of owning a weapon, a gun, what good is the system if their names are not in that system? it's bizarre. what good is it if, like, in the state of pennsylvania, they corrected it, that's why i mentioned pennsylvania, there are over 500,000 people under the law, disqualified from being able to own a gun, only one o-n-e, one name moved to the nix system. they are all now moved.

what good does that do if we don't know? why are we kidding the american people saying we're preventing fellows from being able to legally buy a weapon if you have thousands upon thousands adjudicated in states and local courts of being felons? the nra says they support the current background system, which, in fact, they know does not have the names of god knows how many. we don't know precisely, but temperatures of thousands of people. keep an eye on how they support it. initially, they said they support the system being real, but the proposals, they are arguing, is they mark up the legislation in the united states senate are so porous, that they

are going to allow a truck to be driven through the holes in the legislation they are proposing. loaded with tens of thousands of weapons. individuals who should not, for example, they come up with a system where there's a new version of an instant check system to go online and check whether you qualify, and you go to the buyer, a private sale, saying i'm clear, and that person says, yeah, you're clear, but guess what? they want the law to say no record can be kept. how in the hell would you know whether any of the transaction was real? no record can be kept. second, we improve safety, in our view, if relimit high capacity magazines again, totally consistent with the second amendment rights of the american people. as mark kelly, gabie giffords'

husband points out, the shooter in tucson, had he had ten rounds in the magazine rather than 30, the little girl, a granddaughter of a famous delawareian, dallas green, who i looked up to playing baseball in delaware, she'd be alive probably to this day because it's when he tried to change the clip, all the officers who work for you guys, and some of you who are mill -- military, you can change that clip in a second. i'm not a bad shot. i was out at the secret service range, and it took me close to two and a half to three seconds to change that clip. under pressure, i don't know how not being a professional i would have changed a clip. the truth is if the number of rounds in that clip was ten, the probability is she was alive. you know how it worked. what happened was the woman, changing the clip, reached out

and knocked the arm. that's how he was -- that's how they grabbedded him. the number of rounds used in sandy hook was astounding. i'm not allowed to tell you because the investigation's going on, but it was well beyond ten rounds in the clips, although, there's all kinds of speculation in the press how many rounds. limb limited to ten, who knows. one, two, three, five of the babies may be alive. police got there in two and a half minutes. two and one-half minutes, they were there. it makes sense. to you guys and women who are hunters, if you need 30 rounds in a clip, you shouldn't be shooting deer. [laughter] you're dangerous to your partner. [laughter] i'm serious. think about it. i was told, no, we need it for the little varmts.

okay, i get it, more muskrat and mice could be alive. okay. i think we can put up with that. [laughter] guys, these arguments. third, we think reinsulting the ban is constitutional sensible. 37% police in the nation report increase of assault weapons after the ban expired in 2004. ask your guys whether or not they show up out gunned. not only law enforcement agencies are oh posed. as i said to your committee, it's also leading flag officers of our town, general powell, general mcchrystal, several others whom i met with yesterday out and going public saying these are warranted on the battlefield. you don't need them at home to hunt or to protect yourself. fourth, we propose a gun trafficking statute.

you're probably the only folks in america who know there's no gun trafficking statute. today, today, often the only way to do is purchasers to prove they lied on the background check, not just hard to do, but it comes with a sense of six months, and it changes it to make it an offense to transfer it to another person. there's common sense exceptions for buys governments for people allowed to possess guns, and there's a sentence up to 20 years. fifth, as all of you know, we have to increase the number of police officers on the street. no one knows it better than you. up to 30,000 badges because of the recession are taken off, put in a drawer, fewer people on the street. one thing the crime bill of 94 showed, that the more sworn officers on the street, the brat greater reduction on the street, including gun violence. evidence is clear.

violence crime dropped 33% while the codray of those of crime committing agencies actually increased. since we've come to office, we added back 4,000 folks in the cops program, 4700 police officers. that's not enough. that's why we prepare an additional $4 billion for cops grant to support 15,000 more local police officers to be -- to deploy the way your local officials think they should be. six, we have to end the resuction denying the ability of the most confident people in the country to do research on gun violence. the idea that this cdc down in atlanta can't conduct research or keep statistics, that the national institute of health can't conduct research, that the best minds in america can't conduct research is simply ridiculous. it's ridiculous. that's put on the writers of the

appropriations bills since 2004. makes no sense. you know what it reminds me of? making the speech longer, in the senate as a 29-year-old kid, i was flattered coming from delaware that the general managers wanted to meet with me from ford and chrysler. i thought i was a big deal. i came from an automobile producing state, not anymore, but it was a large presence. you know what they wanted to talk about? a guy named ralph nader wrote a book called "unsafe at any speed," and they wanted to make sure that the national highway safety council could not keep statistics and do research on automobile accidents. i couldn't figure that out at first why, and then i figured it out. everybody thought the reason why you don't need a safety harness is that most people in the passenger seat died because they were thrown think windshields.

not true. they fractured their skulls hitting the poles going up. if you had a harness on, that saves that. that costs money. they found out most people in the driver's seat didn't know why they died, 85% died because they were impaled by the steering column. that's a hundred dollar fix to retract it. we have the safest automobiles in the history of america, and per capita, fewer traffic deaths than ever before. why? because we got the facts. facts lead, facts acquired by bright people and examine sometimes lead to solutions. we looked at the restrictions calling on congress to fund $10 million in research on the issues, not just to study impact on gun violence in the community, but to understand

what many of you talked to me about. there's speculation. people say, well, you know, the fact that kids average in their 10-12 years old, spend an average of six hours a day playing violence video games, playing video games. there are -- some of the games, you have seen them, assault weapons with a chain saw on them getting points by bullets in a person, and if you cut their heads off, you get a bonus. people speculate. there's an impact on the young adolescence brain, does it induce behavior? there's some studies, but there's no serious studies. i have my own prejudice like i all do, i don't know the answer, but we need serious study. we need serious people. we got to get the nobel laureates of that area, child

psychiatrist, neurologist so we have to look at it and an informed society should not be afraid for the facts. .. weekend survey all of you and get best practices. and not demand the state falls but offer them. i'll bet everyone of you have been called by a school principal, superintendent, the

school board asking for your recommendations. god forbid what happens if i of a shooter in my what do i do? the other thing we think we should do is we should give schools flexibility on schools go so-called school resource officers. you've been around long enough, assistant ag's or a cheese or other capacities when we used of school resource officers. out of the cops bill. we proposed another thousand, namely to make the point. but this time we think you should be given flexibility. it has to be a sworn shield you if you want that shield in your hallway armed or unarmed you can choose it, or if you decide that your district does not want an officer but wants another school psychiatrist or a psychologist, or they want a counselor or the what additional help in the school, you can use your money for that, give them the

flexibility. we think the best way to help students is to arm teachers. not with a weapon but with information. teachers and administrators should be taught how to recognize the warning signs, those red lights that go off that every psychiatrist and forensic psychologist can point out to you are warning signs that there's a problem. what do we do? my wife teaches full time, she teaches 15 credit at a community college, she's employed by the republican governor of virginia, -- we had dinner the other night joking about that -- but here's the deal. here's the deal, what do we do? we teach teachers and administrators first aid. we teach them cpr. we teach them basic things. we should be teaching them basic science as to how to recognize the behavior that is really aberrant behavior. not to make right and i think to get as a problem, but to make

sure you get the school authority as well as to the parents. and get them some help, direct them. not generically. had a list of where they can be sent, who they can talk to, what kind of mental help they can get. and we ask for $20 million to help start a pilot program to do that. finally, there's a consensus in the country that we need to make mental health services more affordable, available, and especially among our young people. you have to step people who are, i think you have overqualified guys, you have an admiral and a general, but they can tell you better than i can come at all of those of you who are veterans can tell me. there are 300, 349 suicides last year in the united states mildew. i have on my car every single day i show up at work, and this is been the last three years, it's not because of bo was in

afghanistan. i've done this. i list on here daily that exactly hungry troops have died in iraq and afghanistan, and exactly how many troops were wounded in iraq and afghanistan. because every single solitary one of those people have a family. every single solitary one of those people as affected the committee. and so far there are roughly 6536 dead, 50,506th visible wounds. but guess what, folks? the aspen is there's 300,000 women and men coming of something from traumatic brain injury or psd. over 300,000. it's expected to go to half a million. and what happens now? you know from your friends coming back, and some of you know people. they know they have a problem so they called for help. no answer. no one on the phone because we

don't have enough forensics, we don't have enough nurse practitioners have a background in psychiatry. we don't have enough psychiatry. so what did we call for? we call for not just for them, we have taken care that backlog in the military by hiring several thousand people quickly. we know the people between ages of 16-25 experienced the highest rates of mental illness compared any other age group. we know they are among the least likely to seek help, and we know when they seek help if they are poor or at risk children, they a job at age 18 in most of your jurisdictions for medicaid. we need to fix that. i believe we can. there are three main issues, costcost of mental-health care,e availability, and the statement associated with seeking treatment for mental health. particularly in the area of we have a lot of gang bangers you

have to deal with in your streets and in your cities. with regard to costs, we need to make insurance companies provide quality coverage for mental health as well as many other health. county health at it was passed in 2008 demands that. it's a lot now. we've already expanded access to mental health care treatment for millions of people through the affordable care act, like it or not we've expanded it. we are working on new regulations around that law that will ensure that 60 million americans who do not qualify for health care coverage now we'll get it. and later this year we have put in place the final mental-health regulation to expand mental health, care coverage to tens of millions of more. and with regard to the build of a personal, the availability of personnel, we are proposing to train immediately more than 500 mental-health professionals with specific skills they need to serve young people in our schools and our communities. and we did the same thing, by

the way, we know this because we both share common border, we're having trouble in the '70s and '80s and '90s getting doctors into these small towns, whether it's in delaware or maryland or wherever it was. so we put in programs, a bipartisan program nationally that said will help pay your medical health, your medical do -- >> we will leave the last few minutes of vice president biden's remarks. you can find them online at c-span.org. take you live to the brookings institution for european parliament member and former prime minister of belgium, guy verhofstadt. he will be introduced i gave it from who will take the podium in just a moment. david frum is a contributing editor at the "newsweek" and the babies. they will talk about political and economic future of the eu. >> that might be one of the things we can talk about on the

stage day. and also david frum, one of the most prominent commentators here in washington, d.c. from the "newsweek" and "daily beast." we're going to have a discussion today about a whole range of issues related to europe, hoping to move past the current political crisis and then to bicker discussions about eu-u.s. relations. we've obviously heard former senator kerry and his secretary of state visit to europe, with a whole host of issues on the table. lots of exciting things going on from all kinds of questions about italian elections to will the uk leave europe? weatherby a new transatlantic free trade agreement. we've got a lot of things on the agenda. but our colleagues are going to interview each other. we're going to start with a brief presentation an opening statement by guiding, and david frum we'll take it from there,

do what he usually does which is give us a great set of questions, insights and guide the discussion but eventually into some participation from you the audience but, unfortunately, guy verhofstadt has another event at 12:30 so we will have to rush at 1215 time it. so we'll have to keep our watches at the ready. and so i will turn over without any further ado, but first i would also like to thank a couple of our colleagues were in the audience. this is part of a series of events on europe that we do with our colleagues. and a whole host of other colleagues who are here. and we have been engaging with them sometime, planning a bridge like one of those rather on a checkout entire bridges at where we raise funding for that to

cement our relationship it would also like to thank the european parliamentary liaison office in washington, d.c. and a number of colleagues who are with us who have made it possible for guy verhofstadt to be with us here today. so thank you very much to everyone. prime minister, david frum, over to you. >> thank you very much. first of all, you said to be a short introduction. with a politician you never know how short the introduction can be, but i will do my best and first of all, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time that in coming to washington to give an introduction about the eu crisis, the crisis of the european union and what can we learn from united states. i think it was such as ago it was that moment that prime minister of belgium, i was speaking of washington on the same topic but it was that before such a prestigious institution it brookings. it was csis. i hope there are no people of

cis in the room now. so today i am back in a quite different context i should say, because compared to six years ago, and the european union is in the midst of a serious crisis, and i shall not give you a whole overview of everything, what happened the last years in europe. but you have certainly followed the greece crisis, december 2009, the portuguese financial crisis in 2010. the average debt crisis also in the same year, problems in madrid, in spain. problems in italy. so we have to recognize that since the outbreak of the financial crisis since 2008 we are in the midst of a number of serious problems. and the question i want to raise with you this morning is yet what went wrong in the european

union? what is the reason that there is a crisis in european union? because it does find in other parts of the world. why, what is happening exactly in the union? and what is going wrong, and i put this question as a convinced european, someone who believes in a more integrated, i should use the word federal europe, because as many of you will know, we have so many people in europe that believe that it is the existence of the union itself that is the problem. certainly not the solution to our crisis. they would rather retreat behind their national borders, as it was the case in the 19th century in a world of old style powers, old style nationstates. and, in fact, many of these

people don't understand that this world definitely does not longer exist, and that 19th century is clearly behind us. i'm always saying when you're president barack obama cannot deal himself with climate change, cannot settle himself trade agreements with, for example, china, what chances are there for any single european country to achieve this. and moreover, i'm always giving the example of what should be the g8 years from now in 2040, something like that. g8 chubby the west, china, india, brazil, russia, six names now, and the last two shelby indonesia and mexico. and one single european country. nevertheless, i think that the challenges are huge. it is our societies that are at stake, our principles and our

rate of life that counts in this world of tomorrow, and i think it certainly necessary that the two big continental blocks, europe and the u.s., are working together. one-seventh of the world population, still 60% of world gdp. also two continents that share the same freedom. but let me return to my initial question. what went really wrong in european union? well, i think that mainly when we talk about our problems we have to talk about the eurozone, where we made by establishing this eurozone a number of fundamental mistakes. we created, as you know, a monetary union, but we not install at that moment and economic union. a fiscal union, a banking union.

and today we all know that it is impossible that the single currency with 17 different governments, 70 different bond markets, 70 different economic strategies that it simply cannot work. i'm always saying, maybe the state can exist without a currency. our number of examples of them, but there was never a currency him and there is no occurrence in actual world without the state. state authority that can guarantee the economic financial and political conditions to sustain the currency. nevertheless, the european decision-makers certainly go exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. they thought it was possible to introduce euro without the necessary means, and all these necessary means should become spontaneously reality. in a nutshell, they thought that it was possible to have a single

currency, the euro, based on, especially to specific roles, two basic rules. the first time you know them, no doubt-60%, and secondly, no fiscal deficits higher than 3%. and do not get me wrong, these rules are fond. i do not criticize them, ma but the founding fathers of the eurozone made the mistake not to foresee come in my opinion, a public authority at a eurozone level to impose that. a public authority strong enough to prevent member states from breaching them. a public authority with the necessary means to sanction them and to penalize. they thought, they thought they should penalize themselves. what is in my opinion certainly and politics very naïve opinion. so that was not the only mistake

naturally we made. every time the stock markets are going up and so-called spreads down, many in european union believe that the crisis is over. and i think it's sufficient to see the effects of the elections in italy to realize that it is completely wrong. it's enough that a single election goes badly for the markets to react immediately with a number of devastating consequences across being. if all that 24 dash been in 24 hours the spread for italy went up 100 basis points, that's 1% more than just before the election but and with engaging to other markets, to portugal, spain, and so when. so the crisis around the euro, the euro crisis is not over. and this crisis, in my opinion, and my messenger today describes

a structural solution, a debt solution and reform. because the meetings since the outbreak of the crisis in the silver 2009, the european heads of state and government have, in fact, in my opinion not been able to agree to such structural solution. and moreover, in my opinion, that is because there are, in fact, unable to do so, not made to do so. the european council that is in the middle now of the decision-making inside the european union is, in fact, in my opinion not made to govern europe or to manage the euro area. and moreover, i think that european council does not even represent the interest, the general interest of the european union. it represents mainly the animal

committed interests of individual member states. -- the amount committed interests of individual member states. if the united states was to be run by the 50 states governors. can you imagine that? no obama and no american administration, not at all, not even capitol hill can disappear, not completely but at least partial. and you have been the 50 governors alone coming together, five, six times a year that had to provide a policy for the united states. to enter iraq? anyway, the 50 state governors around the table, what do we do to make the dollar more sustainable. and all this by unanimity. and you know better than i do think that unanimity is certainly not the best way to govern a country. and even less like.net, and was already a lesson understood by

your founding fathers over 200 years ago. unanimity killed anytime in my opinion, real capacity to make real change. and besides this ineffective way of government, and the lack of real sanctions to ensure fiscal discipline, we have also made, if i can get the complete analysis, third fundamental mistake, when we lounged -- launched a year. i call the other side of the going to get fiscal discipline is one side of the coin, you need another side, then solidarity. without solidarity, monetary union can simply not exist. in fact, the essence of a monetary community, and it's clear that such a form of solidarity can take different forms, can be a monetary fund. it can be, by the way, a partial

-- or comment issuance of sovereign, the way hamilton did. more than 200 years ago. or finally it can also be done by a serious federal budget. so a budget that can finance government policies and can be the basis for that currency, but the main problem in europe is that none of all of this exists in europe. besides to limited rescue funds, you know them, european financial stability facility there it was a temporary rescue fund that had been greeted in 2010, and besides the more permanent european settlement mechanism, was the follow up. besides that, that is, in fact, nothing at all. the only thing what we have is a budget of 1%, and let's be honest, european budget of 1% compared with the 24% in the

u.s., nevertheless, always difficult, not always agree on the 24% after it. but it is not this 1% that can make any difference. and moreover, the lack of a real independent revenue inside the union makes the union, how i should call it, a hostage from the member states. and we all know if we want to tackle the problems in the european union, we need bigger budgets with direct income for the union so the union itself decides on what needs to be funded or and so that you can also establish what is normal, what is the evidence in a true democracy, a direct link between citizens and your public authority in your country. so that they can see what they

pay for, that can be a federal vat value-added tax, it can be a carbon tax, financial transaction tax. ladies and gentlemen, you need some real direct funding of your federal authority to be credible and to be effective. so in a union that does not work well, because of ineffective governance. it's not only an institutional issue, not only institutional problem, it is, in fact, people and economies that suffer most from the. let me give you one example. i'm very convinced about it. had the european leaders, for example, decided in december 2009 to help greece immediately and then they should have established, for example, at that moment in december 2009 a new defense mechanism of that budget in exchange for greater financial support, i think we

would not be in the crisis we are today in europe. and also i think that many millions of people would not have suffered. but because we have given the impression that we could get out one of the members, monetary union not longer really exit, so the fact of inaction and the cost of ineffectiveness in the european union is for the moment very high. too high, in my opinion, and see what it does for the moment in italy with half the population voting for to populist parties. this is what happened. one party, party of alys cohen that created the mess, i should say and the other populist party, the party that is supposed to politics, opposed to the system. or look if you want to another

example, to greece where extreme populist even outright fascist party emerged for the moment. so my clear message of debate is that we must change drastically the way we govern europe. we must in my opinion as fast as possible introduce what i call the federal way. because federalism guarantees not only the respect of differences, it provides also mechanisms for taking decisions by majority, ensuring democracy, ensuring effectiveness and transparency. and then the question is, what does it mean for the european union, such a change and a federal system? in my opinion for building blocks. first of all, the establishment of a true european government, for the moment that should be in fact a drastically reformed

european commission. secondly, what you need is a true european treasury with a treasury minister, should be turned federal democratic control of the u.s. senate, a second chamber get something for states to work naturally together with european parliament, representative king citizens. and forth, also a common european bond market, we start with what we call european collective redemption sent. that is the ideal to neutralize steps across 50% mark to create liquid market of three children of euro -- 3 trillion of euro and that would be a real game changer that should change the marks to ensure when i give you these building blocks and you're under can come you say that's exactly what we did in the 18th century, more or less. you started in 1776 with the

declaration of independence. in 1781 with the arctic of the -- the articles of confederation so based on unanimity, and then in 1787, a big change in the convention of philadelphia in which the articles of the considerations were fundamentally changed in a real federation with article seven stipulating that an approved by nine of the 30 states was sufficient to approve the constitution, and bring it into force. and in 1790, the hamilton moment. we are still waiting on the hamilton moment in the european union your the first half of the treasury will introduce treasury certificates, offer huge battle with thomas jefferson, but also futile for thomas jefferson because washington had been created in that deal at that moment. and then, it's only later in

1792 with the coinage act that the single currency was established. and only in 1913 that the federal reserve system emerged. so the historic development in the u.s. is quite clear. we're more intelligent than your. we do exactly the opposite. we start with a single currency and then we say oh, we have a problem. we don't have a fiscal union, the banking union is not there. they have no sanctions. there is a difference with what's happened here. so ladies and gentlemen, i think that we need to make this new federal system in europe. and also for our american counterparts, because not only unified europe based on the example of our american counterparts can be a long-term and reliable partner for the u.s. is, in fact, a choice, choice

between the efforts of 27 small states, or a single, solid partner. and i think that in a globalized world of tomorrow, the interests of the united states is to work with a single, solid partner at the other side of the atlantic ocean, and not 27 different member states. and i think also that this cooperation can ensure that our values and principles become the benchmark across the world. and that's a reason why, that's my conclusion. i very strong support the free trade agreement between the u.s. and eu. it's clearly i think in the interest of both. it would lead to an increase of 100 billion euros in the gdp of the european union to approximate the same figure, 90 billion in the u.s. but it

should lead also to an increase of exports of both continents. the focus is six and 8% of increase for both. so i think i'm and that's my answer. i think we have all interest in the first of all, for a dead reform of the european union, and they fast as possible, this trade agreement and cooperation between the two blocs. and to end, ladies and gentlemen, i want to end with a quote of what you otherwise in washington than with a quote of george washington, because he was not only your first president, but it's also a european visionary. he wrote in a letter to wonder just ago in a letter to his european friends of lafayette, the following sentence. it's interesting to repeat it for you. i am a citizen come i am quoting him. i am a citizen of the great republic.

i see the human race united like a huge family. we have made sewing of liberty which will little by little spring across the whole world. and one day, one day on the model of the united states of america, a united states of europe will come into being. united states of europe will legislate for all its nationalities. well, you can say that he was well ahead of his time. george wasn't even by today's standards, certainly when i'm comparing him with the actual primers of britain, mr. cameron, he is well way ahead. but george washington was convinced that no matter what europeans will come together. will form this united states of europe. and let's be honest, this was thinking outside the box. you can say that, certainly in the 18th century. and few would have thought that

there is a chance for that to happen, but there are also people, people who so, in fact, viewed united states as the source of inspiration. in all the moment, united states of america has opted for more cooperation, more federalism. and having done so not only it survived but flourished than never before. a lesson, the same is necessary for europe, certainly in the globalized world of tomorrow. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> prime minister, thank you for your very lucid and candid remarks. in our behalf of -- it happens

in washington, d.c., thank you, too, for your compliment suggesting there any lessons for europe to learn from american governance. we think we're setting world records in this functionality here. [laughter] it's impressive that anyone thinks with anything positive to offer. you stated very emphatically and very clearly, the requirements for a successful monetary union, a covencoffin, common treasury, fiscal policy, banking policy. none of those were in place, as you say, when the euro was launched. in that case, was it not reckless and irresponsible to launch the euro? this is like, is it not, is this not like saying i want to go to see and i know i'm going to need water, food, fuel and maps. i have no water, food, fuel and maps and then going to the seat anyway. >> i agree with you, but you

have to understand why it has been established. the euro was not economic protest or financial protest. it was -- pure political project off the fall of the soviet union. a deal was made between france and germany. okay, because remember that under western leaders, western european leaders i just agree to democratic germanys at that moment. i think that even he played longtime with the idea. i think it is a stupid idea but at that time that was in the air. and, finally, mitterrand understand that it was impossible to go against this trend of unification of germany. and he asked for that, and the

price is okay, i shall ask for common currency and then to establish really germany in the middle of the monetary union, so that never again, never again germany can break away of the system. that is the reason why we created this. that euro, we introduced the euro. it had been prepared in a proper way. no problem with that. it was a success in most other countries, but the problems emerge immediately in the sense that if you don't have an economic civil union and only a number of rules, it is not sufficient to admit be sufficient and the time of economic growth in the beginning 2000, 2007 tha 2007 there was f, seven years no problem, low interest rates in europe, european union. everybody benefiting from the. then comes the financial crisis.

financial crisis that emerged and that created not only problem but -- in a number of countries. and, of course, it is the main reason of this increasing debt since 2710 european union, like it was also the case in certain ways in u.s. and so at that moment what you see is that you don't hav have r economic union come you don't have your fiscal union. the only thing what you have is a number of rules that have not been applied by the two big countries. the first two members of the euro zone were going to fly the fiscal deficit rule of 3% and they are saying yeah but, that are exceptional circumstance. i mean, monetary issues that always exceptional circumstances. and so we cannot apply them. that created impact the

sentiment, not only inside but also to the market that this was not real built on sound policies, a sound economic and fiscal you. and then you have naturally december 2009 what happened what is that is too simple to going because greece was very bad. what happened was the rating agencies downgraded greek bonds to bbb+ which will be very good today but at that moment bbb+ was a real problem. and at the same time the european central bank announced that she should not longer accept bbb+. everybody handed in the portfolio, a number balance. [inaudible] so that, the crisis in fact was borne. >> europe main event economic crisis but at economic

consequences. from the inception. and those consequences have been catastrophic. the worst economic disaster to strike the european continent since the great depression the millions out of work. millions. and those consequences showed up immediately. as you say, those low interest rates created a tremendous incentive for people in the southern part of the continent to borrow an import, it created an incentive for people in northern europe to export. from the beginning, france saw its share of world trade collapse. from the beginning, germany so its share of world trade rise, mostly to the extent of friends. now we see a continent with unemployment rates at great depression levels across the bottom after is a calamity. it's a catastrophe. people are turning on their political leaders, those political leaders are saying,

what did we do? why are you blaming us? should not we begin with kind of a moment for accountability and responsibility today, the euro was a terrible mistake? and at this point we have only bad options, and the people who created this mistake need to be held to account? >> first of all, our people, thing like that about euro, increase for in spain or in italy or in portugal, has a convincing 70-city 5% for the euro. [inaudible] able to if i lose tomorrow the euro, we go back to the old policies of our predecessors did we know what it was. every two years, local currency.

to be game competitiveness because of a lack of reform in the country. and who is paying the bill? the normal citizen. using changing power. that is happening every to use. it's a contradiction. they have all these difficulties with what is europe -- and at the same time if you ask of what you want, you want to continue? so the problem is not the euro. the problem is lack of form in a number of countries, and mainly the south but not only the south. take france for example, of the european union. and what is helping out is the euro can create a pressure to all these countries to reform. and to do what is necessary. not to do it to get in the path because it's no longer possible. they have no longer their local currency to evaluate and have

competitiveness that way. was the euro a good initiative? certainly a wise decision. it was not well prepared as we discussed already. but a number of countries had an enormous advantage. some countries like belgium, my country, or the netherlands, ma germany but also a number of other countries. all monetary were a polish. i can give you a figure for a country, my country, but the netherlands. the netherlands who cares why, because there was an election. six, seven months ago in which a political party said we want to get rid of the euro. we want to get out of the euro zone. he lost one-third of his election in the election. why? because the dutch are not stupid or just something about figures and so on. some people said even too much. and there were analysis showing

that from all financial institutions showing that if the dutch would go outside the euro system there should be an economic downturn three times bigger as lehman had on the dutch economy. why? >> you have created those. europe is build something like the doomsday machine from "dr. strangelove." a giant explosive mass under the kind that will kill you all if you get rid of it, quickly. but is killing you all slowly and it's to come used to be in italy people would would lose two or three or five or 6% of purchasing power ever you. now the unemployed lose 100% of their purchasing power all at once. and not just for one year but for year after year after year in the case we are now closing on half a decade of mass unemployment. 50% for young people in spain

and greece. people in spain, we are seeing the beginnings of immigration. it's true, the dutch intelligence and the germans have profited hugely. and their suggestion for the way to solve the problem is that all the people who are suffering must change and how the people have benefited get to stay the way they are. >> that i agree with you. that's why so that the other side of the coin, is that my criticism giunta policies of european union is the only tackle the question of fiscal stability. i started with budgets on the safety% of the general government in belgium. with 137th -- one of three somerset debt to gdp. we know what we're talking about, how to manage it. fiscal discipline is necessary for growth.

but if you for the moment and that is what is happening, you did only fiscal discipline and you don't organize. also, solidarity in a certain way of the european level, you have the mess we have today and the problems we have today, massive unemployment in portugal, and spain. as you indicated. and that's a problem. the european leaders see fiscal discipline as one, a huge principle to have a sustainable union. down for the moment, you to recognize other side of the coin and it is holiday. and that means, in my opinion, for european bond market, or mutual station of debt, partially. why? because then you can create a market. you can attract savings. you can launch investment in

europe. an attempt to show you what the problem is. an example of a small country, so not on a spain, not about italy come on talking about the country that is nearly fully compliant. small country, 2 million people. less than 60% still compliance with the stability pact. [inaudible] not the best people of the class. there are much more problems in other countries. you know what they are paying? 60% was there last financing cost for the government. otherwise they would've paid more than five points 66%. so a country fully comply, not fully, nearly comply. why? small market.

[inaudible] it is a small market with no liquidity. there is a brazen principle that all these leaders in europe have forgotten, and bond markets is liquidity what counts. high liquidity, low rates even before the financial crisis. the interest rates in the u.s. was lower than the interest rates in germany before. financial crisis, i'm not about the actual situation. they are far better than those venues. why? because of liquidity. the bond market in germany, thousand, the bond market in u.s. is 10 trillion. that's the difference in size and is also a difference in interest rate. and the second one, you don't have credible authority behind. the problem is a structural problem. it's not only a question of structural problem. you have no real common strategy

that can oblige member states to do the reforms that are necessary. and that creates also this increase in interest rates. i've always comparing -- 26%. >> no investor does exactly that. if worst comes to worst the japanese government can make ian and estates government can make dollars. the slovenian government can't make euros. that is what they are being punished for. you have this competition you present is one of which is a people will be punished until they reform. do you worry about what that means for the stability of european democracies? we are seeing, you mentioned greece. we are seeing on the fringes of europe. are we seeing some countries backsliding away from democracy?

the patience of the spanish people is almost superhuman. but there are limits to everything. italy is at a protest. it's seen so far that a protest with a lot of content but it is an expression of a pda should of political leaders. and who can blame them? >> i think it is already not only do your crisis, but the crisis of the union as such. and political, not only financial or economic. you have to make a good analysis, is the good conclusion, what is the good conclusion from the? to go back to nation states? to go back to 17 different markets? to 17 nations that own their currency with their own -- i don't think so but in the global is one of the more it seems not to be a good choice to me. go back to nation states. know, you have to go do your work and go further in your

integration and everything that is necessary. for example, that means that you have to oblige, for example, countries like italy to change the labour market. because if they don't change their labour market, there is an increase in the rate that puts pressure on the euro, and puts a political problem in union. the fact that there's an obligation to reform, and why, because you have a common currency, common destiny, and a common economy. so the question is, we know what the problems are. the question is, what way we go? if we go back to loose confederation of 27? i don't buy. i think that's the wrong choice to make in a globalized world of tomorrow. or go further in what is a normal way of thinking, because different in the u.s., but with

not the same consequence. if, for example, california goes bankrupt, it's not that the old american system is collapsing. is a small economy like these only representing 2% of european union has a problem, the whole system is in shock. because of the lack of real federal discipline. >> when you talk about going forward, if you were to follow the american example, the hamilton project, that would mean that taxpayers in belgium, in the netherlands and germany would say we accept to be fully responsible if need be for the pensions and health care of people in portugal, greece, slovenia, poland would they join. we will pay. what people in connecticut pay today are responsible for all the obligations. and i'm not talking about government. i'm talking the social welfare

system of kentucky and texas. is there any sign that you're taxpayers in belgium suggest we agreed to pay people increase, we agreed to pay for health care in greece but and if they won't do that in your fiscal system won't exist and, therefore, by your own monetary system must be fixed? >> well, in fact they are paying now for it. that is what's happened. spend your fiscal transfers or what, 2% of european gdp? i mean, hours, our federal government moves it, insurance companies in our federal government was around, right now it's more, 20%. i mean, it's that. kentucky would not have social security, medicare and medicaid on its own. couldn't possibly afford. it's paid for by the people in connecticut, california and other states. >> well, if i can come back a little bit to the pair financial problems, because there we are,

the more taxes in belgium and the netherlands, germany are paying for the moment to the rescue fund but because of the rescue fund we can give sustainable lower interest rates to these countries to finance the public debt. what i'm saying is there may be more intelligent ways to do it. that is, by mutual session of debt under strict conditions, then you pay less interest rates to the bondholders. now what we've done is where giving to italy, spain, portugal and they pay high interest rates above all, mainly outside european union. so i think there is a more logically to solve the problem, hamilton way, mutual lies partially and that you pay less interest rates, italian bond, spanish bonds. so that these bondholders, less interest rates. that costs taxpayers less money.

if you develop a federal budget of a certain size, you have automatic transfers inside. our people against it anyway, the dutch, they knew very well the question is very simple, do you agree, yes or no, to help more the greeks? i can't tell you any claim come in an environment, very bad because some people say no now, the greeks and told were. there's always sunday. they have a good pension. they have never played for the -- most of them are not true or not completely true. but that would be the image of that. they said no now, we go for. if we have to be in a certain part, we should do it. because if we gain also from all this. so you can't explain it to people. you can explain that it's not in

the interest that the euro interferes and that there is -- denmark, it's denmark. the dutch are exporting to what? to greece, italy, just been. you have raised yourself when you're talking about the enormous game of europe for germany. it's true, germany has trade balance with greece before the introduction of the euro. now we have and enormous surplus in the trade balance with greece. so they knew it. they are not stupid they are saying if we destroy the system, to destroy also the engine of our wealth. so there's nothing free in the world, so if you want to gain you have to be a little bit more solider on your transfers spent i will now turn to the audience

for questions. i reserve the right to ask the last one, but we have 25 minutes before prime minister has to go to his next appointment. >> hi. i've a horse bonnet for a newspaper. i was in brussels before. don't we, in fact, have the treasury in europe? [inaudible] so why don't we simply double the event, someone after the german elections we might get partners to agree. then we could even face an italian problematic situation. because currently it would be too small. it's kind of an improvised solution but i don't really see where your big quantum leap should come from with what we have. >> let me first of all say that

the italian debt is 2 trillion. so if you double, you have not enough for that. secondly, dsm is a typical system of what i said and what i've criticized. a rescue fund were you take taxpayers money and you give it to the country to pay high interest rate namely outside you. so you pay interest rate of 5%, 6% or 7%. because of the crisis. [inaudible] of treasury certificates, the hamilton way. you don't pay five, six or 7%. you shall pay two-and-a-half, 3%, shall be all of it more than you paid on the german bond, but not what we have today.

so it's far more i should say cost effective system to deal with your problems. 3 trillion. why we talk about all the stuff about the 60%. so that's the reason why i think the far better system than simply rescue fund. a rescue fund is intergovernmental. we shall see how this works because every time when there is a country that is opposed to something, they can block it. is intergovernmental so unanimity. secondly, we cannot longer also do with amt. the out right measure of debt have been proposed and launched on the sixth of september by druggie. mario draghi.

it has also taken pressure a way from the politicians to do what is mississippi because draghi, if there is a problem, he will have whatever quantity in whatever country with difficulty. that is what is mainly doing. also, if it is used, cost ineffective system and that is not sustainable on the long-term. only sustainable system on the long-term is a mutual decision of common bond markets that can lower the interest rates. >> we will take to from the side of them and to from outside of the ring. there's one in the back corner. >> jeffrey stacy from ctr. two questions. one economic and one more foreign policy related if i may.

would you agree that american observers who sort of would like to now say i told you so not all sorts of -- to say to the european counterparts these days, would you agree that they could be usefully reminded by eu of the decades of benefits of, first the free trade area, and then the single market, dennis hooker sensible monetary policy that they were broad and wide benefits for europeans for years and years for these things. but then i'd like to ask you another question. lately using european countries including your own comment in particular britain and france act in a military fashion outside of the european framework. somewhat successfully come or even very successfully to observers here. certain my former colleagu collt the state department are now pleased with these things, and after the libby operation view

these options as being positive, new options on the table in the era of austerity. presumably you're in favor of combining european armed forces. could you say something about that force? >> thank you. so honored to be one of the cohosts, but i'd like to come back to a question that david raised. this is about related to the backsliding of democracy. i mean, why we have a huge crisis in europe, seems to me that there are strange ideas, strange economic ideas but also done unraveling of the checks and balances of some country. and i just want you to address this. on, how is europe going to do with this? i do they can do with the economic crisis first and then move on and we'll deal with the deficit of democracy second. because we might will have a major, major issue. it's no secret.

my old country, hungry, is backsliding with the checks and balances, and some politicians even look to vladimir putin as the role model. and being excited about the alternative. that's a pretty scary thing, but i want you to answer that. >> may be on the first question, i'm very much in favor in detail of a more integrated europe. not only on monetary issues, tax issues, but also on foreign policy and defense. and i hosted prime minister what has been called after words, cynical. i was in brussels so that's why they call it that. and that was in 2010, where we lounge a number of -- launched a number of policies on defense, common european headquarters,

for example. to launch our operation when we have military operations outside european union. and it's in my opinion one of the priorities to do it in the coming years. also for reasons of public finances i should say, because what is your military? what is your, 27 states, 40-45% of the american military expenditure? that's a lot of money. you can say not so much, it's only 40, 45% of the american expense, but that's a lot of money. and if only we can do 10% of the operation of the american army. ..