show an effort even and effort even if it is perfectly realized to reduce the influence of local power holders in their operation. i should say another thing that does not appear in the report is a lot of populist language that has appeared recently in the legal system. criticisms of judges being too professional for a playing the law to things like that and again that language is not in the document and so i think

perhaps in some way is perhaps a repudiation of the recent turn to populism and returned towards the valuing of the professionalization uncorked which i think it's probably a good thing. so, i think that this reduction in local protectionism and increased professionalization has got to be good in general for intellectual property protection. since in many cases the violators are enterprises with influence at the local level but not necessarily higher levels so you have a particular factory producing pirated dvds paying taxes to the local officials but that isn't going all the way up to the provincial level but it's just a small-town level. so if you lose control over the courts upward, then i think it is much more. none of this is going to make a difference if it rises to the

level of the policy in some areas but that's not all the cases in the infringement of that kind. there have been some complaints about selective enforcement of anti-monopoly against the u.s. and other foreign businesses. the u.s. chamber of commerce recently issued quite a detailed report on this talking particularly about the development in the reform that seems to be the main target so we have a long summary that i don't have time to go into it at this point but i guess i would say that there's not much in the decision that would address the problem because the problem of selective enforcement and perhaps enforcement isn't even the right word since many times companies are being told don't call your lawyers so they are

not interested in the legal analysis is more of the sheriff's approach so not much in addressing the problem because it isn't really about enforcement of law through administrative agencies. a lot of it is the measure they are talking about for the center center on the court system and not so much the everyday action in enforcing the law. another area that is extradition of officials starting with corruption. you know who fled to the u.s. and china says by does the u.s. wants them, they don't. the government tried for a lifetime -- long time to get him back into the canadian court stood in the way so we have different branches of government and genuine separation of power and so even the executives can

always do what it wants to do. the problem here is china into the u.s. don't have an extradition treaty and are unlikely to have an extradition treaty and it is unlikely anyone will be extradited without a treaty. some of the problems are well that u.s. justice system feel that the defendant will be granted adequate due process in china and in position you have the problem of the un torture convention which prevents signatory members from extraditing anybody to a place where the language is a substantial ground grounds for believing that there is a danger to. the chinese legal forces themselves have widespread and deeply entrenched southern illness and malignant. there's all sorts of language like this in a recent report by the special reporter for the un commission on human rights.

so there are some serious problems there and it makes it difficult to conduct extradite people. nothing in the fourth plan of reforms agenda that addresses the problem of torture by police so i don't see any prospect in that area. finally i would say to conclude with a look at human rights in general, again i don't see much in the way of prospect for improvement in this area in the fourth plan of decision that maybe there may be things happening outside of the fourth plan decision we do have proposals to make the judiciary and more professional. less subject to the influence of local power holders and those are all good things. but i don't think they really have much in the way of implications along the issue of human rights and the fourth plan of decisions still makes it clear that the loyalty is in the party. so i will stop there.

>> two questions before we open up if you have questions for the audience. having had these discussions many chinese friends i've spoken to have said that some of the criticized chinese officials are officials and events also gained that they do it for days that are now legalized through the children so they can go to top schools because they have legacies and ways of protecting the wealth and the part of the story of going from the age has been finding legal mechanisms for protecting bears and when they seek to do the same thing they can be accused of being corrupt.

he hasn't yet gone after any either the second generation or the original in china are the leading officials from the early stages the people's republic. do we see in tandem with the anticorruption campaign, do you see any way that the group of families are actually protecting or legalizing is there any process of that sort going? is >> when you look at china more generally looking beyond the corruption campaign, china faces a challenge in the generation ago there was no wealthy class in china. one of the byproducts is that

the chinese economy is as big or was bigger than the american economy there is a whole new strata of wealthy chinese many of whom are linked through blood or marriage to the political elite. the popular response is to assume the principles up there through the various ways have inside connections etc.. maybe i'm a cynic but we have those in the united states as well and that no criticism of charles e. clinton per se but i'm pretty sure that when she got a job at the hedge fund it wasn't because someone said your dad is who. we had a similar situation where the sons and daughters of elite have advantages getting into top

schools they work hard and for us this is normal. they go to wall street, they become investment bankers etc.. for china this is all new and i think the general thing china needs to be sorting out is not only the problem of corruption but also the relationship between power and wealth. they are not separate in most economies and get in china the separation is more in perfect and now we have a good legal answer to the question i'm trying to struggle with on-the-fly. >> that is an excellent question worth thinking about. is there some way the second generation has figured out to entrench their privileges on a not so obvious way so i don't have a good answer for that but

i do want to sort of address an earlier point which it is a good point that if we look at any society we will find that somehow the rich and powerful find ways to transmit their power to their offspring. and so i think if one looks at chinese corruption as a way of saying and answering the question is inserting the question is china a uniquely bad, but not it because it shouldn't be the question. i think that when i look at corruption from the legal standpoint it is what is the government doing about it and what is the government allowing other people to do about it so for example if you think about the corruption in the united

states who was it that that exposed it was at was wasn't a top-down anticorruption efforts by the government, no it was muckraking newspapers. so one has to ask whether those institutions are allowed to exist such that chinese people could make their own informed decisions about what kind of privileges do they think are okay and what kind of privileges do they not think are okay. >> one other thought is paradoxically the people that have a real vested interest in creating legal protections for property rates because they don't want to be subjected to arbitrary just because their father or mother on the political side has gotten into trouble so if you look at pressure for property reform it may come from the top down in a strange backward manner. >> you mentioned human rights

concerns and in general it seems when americans hit about the cases of distancing china or any other number we hear the legalistic claims of the officials and then these people got into a disappeared status and they say this is horrible why aren't they getting due process but in the same they have a gold statute we seem to be more inclined to take those claims at face value and then they are disappeared in some extra legal system. is there any kind of double standard at work or what criteria should we look for when

we are judging the claims about evidence or guilt or innocence because we seem to look differently at the claims of corruption and that gets leveled at human rights cases. >> i would like to point out before you said that i had already blown the whistle as legalized unlawful detention under the chinese law and that is what is used against the corrupt officials but it's a huge problem because of course not everybody is actually corrupt and the people who read the run the disciplinary system are not necessarily well trained in the investigative techniques. they don't yet know how to trace the trails of assets from people who've been hiding them so we go to the next best thing and so i think that accounts for a lot of

the treatment that takes place. but in terms of how to look at things i think it's sometimes we could have an idea about the substance and whether they make sense or not. is it fair for example one of the current charges against a lawyer and it's not as vague as it sounds today because that is just the name of a crime and they are the supreme court people's document which makes it even more precise it has to be meant to commit the crimes of the government can't just say or just stirring up trouble. they have to say you did a, b. or comedy or see if it is impossible under the facts that we know them to find that he did

a b. or c.. but very often we are not necessarily going to know those facts but again that is where we can look at the procedure so for example, you know, has the government made the trial opened lex to be there are no state secrets involved. the supreme court has been saying and the chinese law has been saying since 1979 the court organizational law says all trials should be open but everybody knows you can't just walk into a chinese court even though trials are supposed to be open. if they don't have a reason to be closed or opened if they are to be represented by the lawyer of their choice it's allowed. if the witnesses are required to testify in court even in the criminal case is though it

basically never happens i think that we could look at a way of avoiding this issue of can we know what extent are they guilty we can look at the other question and say if there is a good case one could ask at least that much. i think that he deserved a fair process. >> i tend to agree with robert there is a double standard being applied. when i worry about the case by natural assumption is of course. in fact we should not assume that and certainly the way that the process works where you are basically detained by the party and you are detained until such time as they decide you are ready to move whether you are

ready to move onto the trial or you are ready to remain in detention. and i know from reading some of the confessions six months, eight months a year people are willing to confess to anything to get their case moved out of the disciplinary system and into the court system. one of the patterns you see people go to court and won to repudiate their confession and to say i confessed to get to the court to deny my confession and of course the court turns around and says we can't repudiate so i think it is true we do tend to assume without much question people detained by the party are guilty. you look at the numbers it isn't actually true.

they used to give us those numbers and annual reports and they stopped doing them for whatever reason but about half of those that were initially investigated never ended up with an indictment. but with iso and i've been told is that a lot of those people end up getting an administrative punishment because it is determined if they haven't committed a major offense and how many of those people actually determined they are guilty of anything it is a wide-open gap but i think that you're absolutely right when it hits the discipline inspection website it's not under the investigation for serious disciplinary violations. my assumption is they are

obviously guilty but it's a reflex they probably need to avoid. >> the most important is when we have a better word than procure a. the harder it is to pronounce. >> if you raise your hand we would be happy to pass one of them your way. >> thank you professor. i have two questions. one for the professor and one for professor clark. i just have to take the no fear act review for federal employees and i'm wondering if there is any kind of whistleblower protection within the legal system or any kind of parallel system and if you don't mind just a short question.

are there any corruption prosecution hotspots. so generating more numbers even according to your official sources and others is fairly evenly distributed. thank you. >> i'm not aware of any formal ball that provides protection for whistleblowers in the agency's in those wrong doing something like that. >> it does appear that the campaign is falling somewhat unevenly. the problem with how it is falling most heavily you have two choices. you can do it as a kind of art which you raise the individual cases and start guessing my sense is that it is pretty hard hit. it looks like it's gotten a lot.

but that's just my impression of reading it. you need to get the annual numbers which will be filed in march. i haven't looked at the one from 2013 at this point but yes it is uneven. what explains the uneven pattern i haven't had a chance to think about or to analyze. >> yes sir. >> you talked about the political and the principles of looking forward to you think it is going to be more principled because it seems if you want to sustain a campaign that has to be principled. thank you. and if i could ask robert to mention the chinese are looking at the street lobbying for

influence that was corruption after retirement. >> i agree with you that to sustain the anticorruption drives over a long period of time principle is to take over from the political. at one side it can be dangerous and it can generate a backlash. you can push things interactions you might not want to go. the principal part is doubled of it. they make up the most visible exciting part of the campaign. the really boring campaign is the day in and day out trench

work against the mid-and low-level corruption. that's been going on for a long time. they escalated that back in 2012. i think it will continue to keep that but i would see at some point of the political side would have to begin to fade somewhat. i think it will never go away and you will continue to have them come up with the principled part is what carries you on year in and year out as you slowly move toward a less corrupt system >> what do you think is the impact of all of this on the economy of the country or is it insignificant ax?

>> it's not in measurable. when you look at the chinese economy and the growth of corruption over the 30 years that they have waged the war china has also had the second largest per capita income in the world. it is almost well over double the number three south korea. its multiple times what we had. so if you look at the chinese economy, the pattern is worsening corruption and rising growth. does that mean that they have raised growth come absolutely not. when hundred million or 200 million sitting in someone's basement is not a profitable

investment. how much has it shaved off i think it's very hard to tell but certainly there has been a cost and as the economy of the word out its double-digit rates you could absorb that cost. as it begins to fall the drag of corruption necessarily increases. so you are at the point now where perhaps jonathan or even hu jintao could look at the problem as a that's not really killing us. i think now more and more he has to worry about the economy drops into growth rates dropped 70% and it's going to become a much bigger drag in relative terms. so yes there's definitely been an impact. >> i wanted to push the conversation about political versus principled because you

haven't really defined what you mean by principled and i will just say what i think and then comment on it but it seems to me that a more macro level you've heard a lot about how the problem of corruption is with all these local officials do not really listen to what the party is trying to get them to do. so i see a campaign against corruption as being the principal being reestablishing central power over local power. that seems to be a lot of the driving force behind it but again you hear it a lot lately about are these reforms about the rule of law or the rule by law. >> there is no question a big part of the anticorruption problem is the protective umbrella and the ability of the officials at the local level to collude the inability of the

states to actually work its will on the local level. that is the perennial fact of the chinese political history. the campaign seeks to break through that but the anticorruption campaign has continued is continued to be structured along those very lines. you haven't seen the centralization or the move also you can cut the campaigns where the center of utterly sends people out to bypass the local level to go after the local corruption that they've done this before when they went after shanghai dalia related to send hundreds of investigators down from beijing because they basically said you can't trust the locals. they will cover things up.

if a sustained anticorruption campaign means repeatedly having to send people out from beijing to literally attacked the local level. you have to get a solution that gets rid of this problem where you were talking about earlier the local prosecutors and told answer and the parties are corrupt are you going to do charge your boss with being corrupt it is career suicide and the other thing i think is it's not like the procured or the discipline inspection commission is corrupt and free insults and battling corruption within the anticorruption institution is a major challenge. >> can i ask a question i don't know whether you've thought about this but you probably have which is that the consensus

among economists is that the growth model which up until now has been sort of driven by investments in things like industry and infrastructure needs to change in order to be more sustainable when it needs to change to something that is more service oriented and more demand driven and so my question is what is the relationship of corruption to the type of growth model china uses and does changing the growth thus changing the growth model will that make corruption in the way that it's carried off now more difficult and if so will that mean we will have less corruption or can we expect major pushback against the people who want to keep on giving into the same way they've been able to do up until now. >> it's concentrated in things like the development and in the energy sector with the

concessions and the oilfield contracts and so forth. in many they have a causing monopoly power. if you move and market size the economy and you've actually d. concentrate the pools in the areas you can use the administrative powers to manipulate the result that should do it. when i look at the corruption in the book my argument was that a lot of the corruption that we saw in the 1990s and early 2000 was a fight over the windfall profits. you should see the eventual dissipation and you have a piece of real estate the first time it boots from the state to the

market there are tremendous windfall profits to be made in the defense of market forces take over. the reason it hasn't happened is because the shift from a investment kind of directed growth model hasn't been complete. is he going to push that with what you were talking about on the third point. i don't know how much profit we've made on that. i think also you are right there will be pushback. people do not willingly give away ill-gotten gains. people will fight to keep them. so yes i think that if you do see the model you should see reductions in corruption. >> if i can bring that question back to you because if you go to the principled state of affairs

it is good to be more principled and less political. but you have to have an explicit theory of how things got this bad in the first place. is it about more virtuous (-left-parenthesis and two of our buddies or will we attempt to look at the system itself and ask are we seeing the beginning of a systematic approach to corruption that can be sustained and principled. >> i don't see that on the fourth plaintiff decision, though cause i do not see them talking that much about corruption. there's recently been a proposal to have a sort of special unit set up and this would be a governmental unit not a pretty disciplinary unit and it would be headed by someone in the rank of the vice president survey

high-level official with an attempt to construct something like hong kong against corruption or something like that but i don't see anything more than that in other words let's try to get a state body that will investigate corruption that has a relatively high-level official in charge and so therefore will be able to overcome some of the obstacles but that doesn't kind of change the basic nature of the system. it just says let's get -- it's like i guess if you were to worry about why poor people don't have enough food, you know you just make them richer rather than -- you make them not poor rather than changing the basic structure of society so that you have the food distribution or something like that. maybe that is a bad metaphor but the point is that it doesn't propose a change to the system as a whole it just proposes to ask him to the switch and it.

so i don't see any fundamental changes like that coming out of the decision. >> looking at the way the cases are presented by think that the tendency is first of all you have a set of challenges that are basically about corruption but you get the moral mistresses so on and so forth where what they are doing is they are saying this person was just not taking advantage of the fact that they have the ability of the rent etc. but they were fundamentally degenerate and when i read that narrative the narrative that comes out the system is good and the individual is bad. it's a lot like denial.

>> it's not just that they were stirring up trouble. the question right in the middle of the back and bend over to the side and then ryan. >> [inaudible] between china and the u.s. on the side against the corruption how long do we need to wait to see some real progress on these aspects? thank you. i think that question a little vague. could you identify the barriers that you've are waiting to go away? >> some officials from china that traveled to the u.s.. how many years maybe even in the next year can we see some from

china sent back to china lacks to these co? >> i don't think there's any immediate prospect on that because that gets into the extradition issues between china and the u.s. and i don't think that there's much of a prospect of there being an extradition treaty between china and the u.s. goes for that kind of thing both countries have to have a kind of fundamental faith in the other countries legal system and i don't think that bilateral faith exists. for example they don't enforce u.s. judgment and they don't enforce chinese judgment. and so i don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. i think there has to be a greater degree between the two = some sand i don't see that happening soon it's the way the legal systems work. again system's work. again i see the example of

canada. the canadian government wanted to send back. and canadian court paper arguing that rid of this guy we don't want him in our country. them in our country. but he'd gotten in and the ports would wouldn't meet him leave would intimate and leave because they had other concerns area they were not concerned about foreign-policy issues were concerned about whether we want people who prize officials to be in our own country. they have other concerns. >> ryan and bend over to this site. >> i just have a question for each of you gentlemen. repressor clark, constitutionalism popped up in the documents after a couple of years of constitutional being a dirty word on the chinese side and accusations and the idea of the western and part of the context and been curious for your thoughts and what it means in the context of the fourth plan and going forward.

that question is all of the mentions of different locations are we seeing the one place i haven't heard much about his shanghai and certainly i've heard rumors off and then on it is going to be next. why haven't we seen any activity in shanghai and the political versus the practical if there's any analysis there. >> i have to disagree because i don't think that it does appear it's does appear in the document. it is the term so they did what the constitution. to act according to the constitution that constitutionalism that is translated still remains a forbidden term and i don't believe that it does.

>> but in many ways we talk about the relationship -- just those two words together i could be wrong but my recollection if you do a word search you will not find the term. of course you find constitution at the constitutionalism as a particular has a particular meaning when that meaning is not welcome because it is understood that the promoters and detractors demean things like accountable government and elections, etc.. >> i just mean to say that it's very important to see that they do not accept the term

constitutionalism. we can talk about the irony of the party that proclaims itself to be a marxist party talking about health healthcare all the western ideas are but let's not talk about that. [laughter] >> if we have short questions and short answers we have a question for you. short questions and short answers. >> it's hard to explain why something happened. there's been a lot of speculation that comes out of those 50 leave the ultimate goal of the campaign is power based in shanghai. i don't have an easy answer because i don't know if it's simply avoiding the blow or if it's term has not yet come so i don't have a good answer to the question.

>> [inaudible] they are not targeting. why he himself is a rebel and on the political reason. >> you can take all of the fronts at once you have to take on those who are your more immediate enemies building united fronts with those who you might want to go after leader. i'm not surprised they are concentrated on the right. >> one last question. >> the phraseology issues in the communiqué one of the key terms

that come up in the communiqué is the rule of law under the communist party leadership. so i need some interpretation of the phrase what does that exactly entail or how large is it comparable to? it is to a constitutional monarchy so yeah just some phraseology interpretation. >> i think the distinction between the rule of law under the party into the constitutional monarchy is that in a constitutional monarchy it is under the constitution so it modifies the monarchy whereas in the rule of law under the party it is modified in the rule of law. so you can get it grammatically. the rule of law under the party -- i don't want to make wordplay

or something like that but i mean to say is as i think it is made clear not just by the words but also by the actions of the party it is not their intention to themselves to be governed by law. i don't want to be unrealistic. humans run societies and so there is no society which can be run mechanistically by the law with no human intervention. obviously we have humans everywhere but there is a difference between political regime's in which the government appeals somehow meaningfully constrained by external rules and systems in which it does not and i don't think -- look at the distinction between when the need to have a legal adviser in the white house who writes legal

opinions coming up justified the act of the white house and when the president wants to do something help us fly, they have to come up with some -- dalia they have to come up with a plausible legal argument. they can just say i'm going to do it. and i don't think that he thinks that way. i don't think that the bureau when they are deciding what to do whatever with her they would say is this legal we ought to talk to this law professor and get an opinion on it because nobody is discussing it. that's not part of the discourse to be defended in terms of whether it is legal or not even if we can say the legal opinions of people in the white house may be disingenuous and they are not very convincing but nevertheless there is a certain discourse and procedure people acknowledged the legitimacy of and i don't see that going on at all or any ambition to have that go on.

>> thank you, professor, professor clark, all of you for coming. december 4 we will have the second annual u.s. china relations review to look back at the past year with chinese and american analysts and of the number 12 we will have the author of who is afraid of the big bad dragon eye china has the best and the worst educational system in the world as well as carrying fischer from the higher education and we will be looking at issues in the united states and the educational systems in the way that we are increasingly learning from one another and we hope you'll join us for those programs as well. thank you and happy thanksgiving. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] president obama will part in the national thanksgiving turkey this afternoon in a ceremony in the rose garden. 2014 national thanksgiving turkey hatched and raised near fort recovery ohio. c-span will have coverage of the events starting at 2:15 eastern. white house correspondent for the white house correspondent for cbs news sent out a message today giblets and gravy expected in 1963 but no pardon. check the sign on the turkey get into jfk 11, 19, 63 it says good eating mr. president.

we tend to volunteer when we know we need to add it to do that kind of thing we tend to step forward and take responsibility when times are hard and i will tell you right now i think this is the moment in america. we just look around and instinctively know we have to change the concept of citizenship. if we go to people in america think if they vote and pay their taxes they did their job as a citizen but that isn't what citizenship is. it is no more than between the people that decided to be a nation and it's a relationship between people that have more responsibility to ian for each other and that's what citizens are they are jointly bound to take care of each other so the concept of citizenship instead of being small either of entitlement and limited responsibilities really is expensive as what you are and what you're about and why you do or don't do what you do. and i think citizenship in

america has the road it for lots of reasons but if he wrote it. co. -- eroded we can look at economic polarization and different parts of our society but if we really look at the problem and we want to fix it instead of going after each individual thing and if we want to take a big step it's going to take a big idea.

as much as we have accomplished in 36 years i don't want to look back at that so much as to look forward the next couple months and in the next couple months there's a couple things i would like to do. one is in the defense authorization bill passed this is an annual effort on the major effort involving large amounts of staff. i also want to finish up some work on the spot investigations looking at some gimmicks that are used to avoid taxes. >> to get beat if i was a

manager for a baseball or football team and i had a 34 in 19 would be in the hall of fame. so that doesn't bother me. i wasn't just a set on going but i had 18 cochairmen in my district that were supporting me and wanted me to run, and i did. >> the associated press associated press reporting to the associate justice ruth bader

ginsburg had a stent placed in her right coronary artery earlier today. the 81-year-old had a procedure after a blockage was found. she's expected to stay in hospital the next 48 hours or so. the supreme court recently heard oral arguments in two cases challenging alabama legislative district planned that relies too heavily on race and racial gerrymandering. they argue plan packs the overall voting power in the state. this is the first case in the the court before it struck down the key portion of the voting rights act by a 5-4 decision in june of 2014. the oral argument is just over one hour. >> people hear the argument in case number 13895 alabama legislative caucus in alabama. in case 131138 the alabama democratic conference versus alabama. may i please the may i please the court. alabama employees racial quotas

and targets based on the racial statistics alone and then he was only racial and the graphic data to meet the targets with astonishing precision. they were not based on any consideration of what is required into the current conditions in alabama the section five actually requires. racial quotas and the context of the district and are a dangerous business. they can be a way of giving the minority is polarized voting, a fair opportunity to elect. but they can also be a way of unnecessarily packing the voters by race in ways further polarize. >> so you want on the one hand they obviously had to move the voters into the majority and minority district because they were all underpopulated. and they need to move enough so that the minorities have an opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice but they can't move to many because that would be packing, correct

>> under the voting rights act under section number to -- two -- is the mixer they have to do that without sticking the race prominently into consideration click >> they don't have to hit a sweet spot. in the section five obligations not to use the excessive and unjustified use of racial categories >> it used to require. in the majority black districts it went from 69% black to 55% black. you would be in trouble. >> section five is always required no retrogressive and based on the ability to elect the current condition.

we had to move new people in and we have to do it in such a way that there was still the 69% black population that they're used to be in order to avoid a direct role christian. >> it has never meant to merely reproducing the racial statistics purely for their own sake. it's meant preserving the ability to elect. >> you can say that. it is maintaining the same percentage and it's certainly the way the justice department and the bad old days used to interpret. >> it may be in the first decade or so they employed a various kinds of practices as you described. as the documents detail, the

department of justice has plans that reduce black populations as long as they don't produce the ability to elect. in alabama in the last round of redistricting if you look at the brief of the caucus at the chart in all of the districts in the house if you look at that chart you will see numbers like a 12-point reduction, 19-point reduction of, template reduction from a 16-point reduction. >> it is down to 56%. why is that. it's to maintain a situation where they can still elect the candidates to choice. >> the reason that this court potential of the county and the reason alabama rightly celebrates in its briefs black turnout and registration rates in alabama now routinely equal

or even exceed white registration and turnout rates. >> you realize and i assume you are making the argument that the opponents of the plaintiffs used to make here. they said, you know, by requiring the packing of minorities in the certain districts your reducing their influence statewide so you know of that of the representatives in other districts can they ignore what the minority wants because they are all packed in. that's the other argument the other side used to be making. >> when the voting rights act legitimately required the use of race in face of polarized voting, then there is a there's a national political judgment that reflects the trade-offs become come at a cost into the benefits as there are to designing these districts.

>> in 2001 takes the minorities out of the district and put them into opportunity districts for political purposes. it's for partisan gerrymandering purposes i assume. it gets into power ten years later and wants to undo what the party did and it puts them back into the heavily populated district. is there a violation when the party does that just a few delete that the motives simply help the partisan balance >> if they do not use the classifications -- >> with the minorities back into the districts this was taken out ten years before. >> that the precedents that are drawn are the line between the partisan motivations in the

district -- >> in the hypotheticals that is partisan. in either case is very violation >> if they don't use race, then there is no problem. >> but they do use the race but it is partisan. it is case number one they find the minority voters and put them into the minority opportunity districts on the packing very heavily minority populated district. then the next party comes in and simply undoes it and uses the same populace. are you going to tell me is that your it your position that it may be in the first case permitted into the second case it isn't? >> is can't be used unjustifiably in either case and the three-judge court -- >> is it justified in the case of a where they were having more minority districts? >> if they acceded to the

obligations and section number two and five on the limited leeway as the states have if they have a strong basis required and they properly interpret the act that's the legitimate path they have. >> they do this for partisan purposes. >> i sense that there is a one-way ratchet here. >> i understand the concern. if the partisan purpose legislature passed the barrier to voting that would surely be unconstitutional. they can't use race in the way the courts cases in the line of the cases indicates are beyond parameters that the states have. they have to have a strong basis in evidence and in this case alabama didn't even ask the relevant legal question. alabama didn't ask what is necessary to preserve the ability to elect what might be necessary to preserve the ability to elect. they just reproduce numbers,

statistics, and the way they did is they just used the racial data. >> you begin by criticizing him a banner for supposedly imposing the quote us. that's listening to your argument it sounds to me like you are just as interested in the quote. if they want to keep it at 70%, but may be legitimate in your view but if they take it down to the minimum that would be required in order to produce the desired result, that is a permissible quota so why are you using this term? ..

if that's what you're doing and they can't prove the contrary, the burden is on the one attacking the district come whether they're doing it by removing some african-americans from this work or by putting more into it it's the same issue, am i right speak with you are right. >> is not a one way ratchet. it is a two-way ratchet which -- >> is a valid in both cases. >> that's your problem. >> doesn't our case. they don't try to -- >> your answer is exactly as i was trying to get to justice kennedy which is partisan manipulation that courts have said may be fine and constitutional. the one thing you cannot do is

use race as a proxy for politics or political affiliation. you cannot use racial targets that don't have a legitimate justification. they are not tied to current conditions. >> i thought you agreed with the justice breyer but now you're saying you cannot use race as a proxy for political affiliation but that was his hypothetical. that these people were moved because blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat. you are saying that's bad if that's the reason they moved and. i don't think he thinks that's bad. >> i understood justice breyer to be describing the situation in which you are moving people because they're democrats. you have voting behavior data. you look at the data. >> you are moving them because they are black and you think blacks will overwhelmingly vote democrat. that's why you moving them. because they're black because we assume a blacks are overwhelmingly democrats. >> in this area the court said that assumptions like that cannot be the basis of the we

district lines are drawn or the way people are classified by race. >> your time is running out but in your presentation you are saying we are attacking a statewide plan. we are not picking one district or the other. you have been attacked from that point. the attack is that shaw claims have to be stripped by district. they can't be statewide. i would like your entry to that question. there has been a shaw claim as far as i know that was statewide. involving district by district. >> darkling is the exact same policy was applied in every black majority district, which is we will use racial data to repopulate as close as we can possibly do it to the exact same black percentage. that's a policy played in all 36 districts. >> how are your clients hurt by that? it seems to me you have to come up with a client in one of the other districts that would've

been more competitive had his packing not occurred. i assume that's the harm that you are alleging. >> your honor, the record demonstrates that we have plaintiffs or we have members of the abc in many of the black majority districts at issue and that at least a sufficient for us to challenge the policy at least as a part in this districts. >> i thought the record you showed you named your plan is by county rather than district. >> by the many of the districts are wholly contained within the county. they occupy the full county. we demonstrate a number of senate districts and many house districts that whole county districts. >> are you dependent of the district by district challenge? does your claim rise and fall solely on the statewide point you make. >> bby statewide we simply needa common policy apply to every district in the state. mr. chief justice, if i may

reserve the balance. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. schnapper. >> mr. chief justice, and it may please the court. is courts shaw jurisprudence channels the conversation that we're having today this court has identified to constitutional claims that could be raised with regard to the use of race in districting. one is intentional dilution of minority votes for the purpose of minimizing their effectiveness and the second one is shaw. we are advancing a shaw claim. >> you lost on the dilution claim. >> we did. the facts make it to the shaw claim were not in dispute at trial. the question is whether they fall within the concept of

predominance in this court's line of decisions. >> did the district court understand you to be asserting a district specific claims? >> i think it understood us to be challenging each of the districts. >> where do you find that in the opinion of the district court? i thought the district court interpreted you not to be making that claim. >> we advanced evidence as to the motive that was a motive common to all the districts and then we advanced -- offered evidence about particular districts to illustrate how that was played out. but there's no conceptual difference between challenging all 36 districts and challenging 36 districts. it's the same claim. >> but you mean in your proposed findings, you dealt specifically with certain distance and not specifically with others. >> the specific information

dealt with many of the particular districts, but that claim that all of the districts were the result of a common purpose, and that common purpose race was the predominant and overriding -- >> but some of the districts were unchanged. the percentage was exactly the same as it was before. those are the only districts that your clients were from. how have they been harmed? >> we have members in all the districts to th the theory of hm in the shawl line of cases -- >> was that established in the district court, that you have members and all the districts of? >> that was the finding. this concerns the black districts -- >> the finding of the district court was you have members -- >> i think it's an all or virtually all. are standing wasn't a dispute.

the concept of injury in the shaw line of cases is not injury to the individuals were in the district that become wider because blacks are moved out. those of the people who don't have standing. this court made it clear it's the individuals in the districts into which blacks are put for the predominant racial purpose of, for predominant racial purpose. that's the standing doctrine that this court has announced. >> predominance in paul's, under this court's -- >> i don't understand what you just said. they have a claim because there are too many blacks interdistrict? >> no. it's not about the number. the theory of the court in shaw is that if race is the predominant purpose in putting blacks interdistrict, that that will likely result in a representational on in terms of the way the elected officials will act. that's been the theory of the

shaw claims ever since shaw. >> you think it's possible for the state to navigate between not enough minority members in the district and too many minority members in the district without taking race into account. >> no, we do not. >> race predominately into account. >> shot doesn't say taking race into the race as a constitutional question in all cases. particularly in the wake of this court decision and easily which made it clear to finally resolving issue has been kicking around for some time that the fact that race was a factor in drawing a district doesn't trigger strict scrutiny. the majority of the court held that forshaw purposes the trigger strict scrutiny the plaintiff would have to show a predominance, that race was the overriding purpose, meaning it was the criteria they couldn't be put aside for any other purpose. >> so they have to navigate between too many and too few

come about without race being the predominant consideration. >> in terms of the constitution, if race is at the predominant purpose and dilution is involved, then there's no constitutional claim. with regard to section five, let me -- i think would be helpful to understand what the government interpretation is in has been for sometime about what section five requires. this is reflected in the government's brief at 22 and 23 and in the 2011th guidelines. the governments of you, this has long been understood, is that the plaque proportion can be reduced to the point where blacks no longer have the ability to elect a candidate of choice. until you get to that point, changes are not retrogressive, and that's not -- >> what do you think -- well, it's speculative. but i think that if alabama had reduced the number of minority

voters in majority-minority districts in any significant way, the attorney general would've come down on them like a ton of bricks. >> that is not correct, your honor. honor. >> he did preclude the plan you are challenging today. >> he also preclude the 2001 plan which did precisely what you describe. the governments of you to set out in some greater detail in the brief in georgia versus ashcroft and in the oral argument of mr. stewart at the time. this remains their view, and consistent with the way the department has operated, the numbers can fall into it gets to the point where the ability to elect is in question. >> i have a problem. can't i just go back to your shaw-nonshaw? basically you're saying i don't have a shaw challenge. >> i have a shaw challenge. >> you are claim it's a shaw challenge but you have to describe the injury. it's its an ephemeral injury,

race played a part in the overall plan without any that any particular district. >> no, no. if a particular districts -- >> no. >> i mean, if it state essential the same, they did move the boundaries much. it's an all white district. if they move the boundaries it wasn't to include more blacks or anything else. it was just because of geographic divisions. so explain to me why you don't have to prove that you were harmed specifically by the application of this policy. >> let me say two things in response to that. first, the theory upshot is that if black voters are, for a predominant racial reason, moved into the district, not just leave it alone, moved into a district for predominately racial reasons, that would trigger strict scrutiny. >> but that wasn't true.

>> yes, it is. when one of the member of the court said the district had to change, i think what he meant was that the plaque percentage hadn't change. they were underpopulated by an average of 15%. there's an average of 6000 voters, individuals putting in house district. 20,000 every senate district. >> now that you're talking about districts could come back to the question i asked the beginning so i just him but we have to decide. on page 128 of the joint appendix there's a paragraph in the district court opinion that explains what the district court understood to be before it on the issue of intentional discrimination. i see nowhere any indication that the district court construed your pleadings and your other submissions to raise a claim about specific district. the third point is we construe the failings of the democratic conference places as arguing

that certain senate districts constitute racial gerrymanders. there's nothing like that with respect to your client. maybe i'm missing something. so if that's how the district court understood your position, then maybe it was wrong, but that would be the threshold question we would have to decide, wouldn't it be, but if you have to be district specific, we would have to say the district court misunderstood the claims that you are asserting? >> i think in the context of the way the case was litigated and tried in the briefs at the time, everybody understood the plaintiffs were challenging all of the majority black districts. >> a district court understood that? then why did it include this paragraph and why did not go through any districts that gets on your as challenging? he went through some that it saw the other plaintiffs as challenging, none with respect to you. >> we think in the context in

which the case was litigated, there was no conceptual difference between challenging all 3066 and charging 36 individual districts. the reason the opinion reads the way it does is that the state didn't contend and we didn't contend that there was different district specific purposes a foot. the states account of this was that the state had a common purpose and adding those thousands of individuals to each district, which was to continue the plaque percentage as it had been all along. it was a purpose, and to all of them. >> and is in a right that after trial when you submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in fact you did reference particular districts? you reference senate districts 18, 19 and 20. in another place you talked about all the majority black districts in the state's black

belt, and you explain how your theory of the case related to each one of those districts. >> we did. this is somewhat analogous to the teamsters decision from back in the 1970s. for the government to prove racial discrimination in promotions, he made out a pattern and practice case by offering evidence that was classwide, that affected all the individual blacks and hispanics, and then offer some individual stories. but the claim was for all of the individuals who work in those facilities. >> you are talking about we construe the violence of the black caucus place as arguing that the acts as a whole constitute racial gerrymandering. we would have to say that was wrong, they didn't get the complaint right, send it back. i guess what -- with abusing wrong with saying this, look,

tell the plaintiffs pleased to point district by district to the fact that the primary motive here was racial. i don't think that would be too hard. have loads of evidence on the. if the primary is racial, and this is the crucial part, they've been to justify this have to show that they to making, and i don't know what word, reasonable attempt, good-faith reasonable attempt, some of the word, to comply with this section, old section five requirements, with this section five requirements. now they have to do it over again anyway and so they do it over again, and if, in fact, some of the questions suggest that that is what they're trying to do. and you would have evidence there that said no, no. , that isn't what they're trying to do. they didn't even read the guidelines of the attorney general. they didn't look at what

happened in the past but they made no such attempt. so would there be, from your point if you come anything wrong with that holding? >> i think with regard to the question of justification, we think it doesn't make any sense, in light of this court's decision particularly in shaw two, to send it back. the court decision makes clear that there are three parameters to the way you assess this. first what they did is to be judged by the correct interpretation of the statute, not what they might have thought in good faith admit. the word correct is in a number of the courts shaw decisions. secondly, the purpose to comply with the correct interpretation has to up in their motive at the time. and secondly, at the time, not a trial but back when they did this, they had to then in 2012 have had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that not using all these different numbers would have violated the

statute. they can't satisfy any those things. they can't go back, you could send the case back to the district court that you can't send case back to 2012 and have them change the purpose or evidence before them. unless you're going to change the standard of strict scrutiny this court has applied in shaw and other affirmative action related cases, you could not do that. is used to late for them to solve those problems. >> i'm still having a psychological problem with your point. there were three reasons. you're saying merely because it was one among the three, it necessarily was predominate as to each district created. the example our hypothetical i posited for you was the primary reason above all others that they said is the 2% district, and there may be districts among these 36 that had contiguous

populations that didn't make a difference about race. they are not affected by this policy. why should we undo that? >> okay. i'm just going to answer the one last question. in fact, as the analysis of the precinct splitting shows, with perhaps few exceptions, there is race-based precinct splitting on the border of everyone in majority black districts in question here. it wasn't a situation where they just took the neighboring districts and they turned out to replicate, to be just the ratio that they wanted. it was very, very calculated and race-based. >> thank you, counsel. general verrilli.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the key point in this case is that shaw claims require district specific analysis. the district court departed from that principle and in our judgment the plaintiffs made very also departs from the principal and i'd like to address the -- >> i don't understand why that is so, general. with the points are saying is yes, we have common evidence, not altogether usual in a shaw claim but here they have evidence. it's a policy statement that retrogression was going to be a very main priority. i think it was number two. and retrogression was defined in a certain way, as requiring the maintenance of black voting population. that was going to be taken into account in every single majority-minority district. the fact that there's evidence, the principal evidence in the case, that relates to every single district and so in a sense the evidence is statewide,

does not make it any less a district by district case. >> that may be right, justice kagan, but it also doesn't prove that raise predominate in the shaw sense with respect to each specific district, and let me try to explain why. the test under shaw is whether race predominates to the dedication of traditional districting criteria. and so it may be that in some districts the effort to maintain the same african-american population resulted in judgments to draw the districts in ways that derogated from traditional messaging criteria such compactness and maintaining communities of interest but maybe in other districts that it didn't, and i can provide specific examples of that. >> i guess i would appreciate specific examples because it seems to me as sort of a going in matter that when you say this is the most important thing except for the reynolds inquiry, this is the most important

thing, that necessarily it's going to affect the way you regional or who you put into the districts. you might not reach the target in every single district, not necessarily you are saying we are prioritizing this race-based thing, criterion, in a way that's going to affect every judgment we make. >> but the question under shaw, your honor, as we read of the shaw line of cases, is whether that is done in derogation of traditional districting criteria. >> how can it not be? if you have three priorities or three criteria in choosing this is the most important criteria, it's just the natural effect of that is going to be to minimize the other two criteria. >> that's not necessary to. sometimes they will conflict, sometimes they will. i can give examples i think that would illustrate that from the record. there were specific findings about these district in the district court's opinion, so i'm not trying to say that this is

what the district court found but with respect to some districts, house district 67, the state argues that was a district in which you were going to have essentially an african-american percentage at the percentage that they did was draw that no matter how you troop it and that was because the surrounding populations around the district were all of comparable african-american percentage. whatever choice you made in order to get to the 2% one person one vote threshold is going to involve moving african-americans. we would submit that's not a situation which raise predominate over traditional teaching try to get it a situation which traditional districting criteria drove the decision. there may be other districts. senate district 26 is when it comes to mind in which, you had the movement of 14,005 their people into district which was in montgomery and surrounding areas, although 35 of whom were african-american. if one looks at that map, it's

are difficult to discern on the small maps that are in your materials but he can get a blowup of it what you'll see in that map is that the so-called crab claws that the parties described that extend out from the district capture african-americaafrican-american. why did you do is carve out the white part of the city of montgomery and attach about a bitter and narrow land bridge to the next -- >> suppose they did that on economic data. data. >> then i think you would not be a problem. it wouldn't be raise predominate over traditional districting try to pick up will go back and to answer the question posed earlier about when partisanship can be a justification and when is it. into the tactical answer but i think if the state were to move electoral precincts from one district to another, the entire electoral precinct, because there he would have the data on how people vote in that precinct, that would not raise a problem under the shaw analysis because you clearly would be

making a decision for partisan reasons. when you split a precinct in which is based on census block information, there you don't have the people vote. what you know is there raise. at that point if you using race as a proxy and i think that's what he was i describe when using race as a proxy in that circumstance, that would violate what this court has said in all the shaw cases is the constitutional norm because you're making an assumption, stereotyping in a situation. >> and that's too at the outset if you can buy race in order to increase their capacity to influence districts? >> that's a difficult question but i think if you are moving people by race in order to ensure that you're not violating the voting rights act that seems to be one thing. >> but then it's a one-way ratchet. >> no, i don't think it is a one-way ratchet because you can move in both directions can just move precincts and not census

blocks. >> general, you say the district court erred in addressing the claim of racial gerrymandering on the statewide rather than a district specific basis. i would assume that that was an error on the part of the district court only if a district specific line was asserted by the plaintiff. but you don't address that issue. >> i'm happy to address it now. i think this is quite a murky question. we agree your honor is quite right to support it appear and jsa 128 is the place where it seems clear that they did to appear, to some of this was a statewide going. basic theory is that the motive influenced every district and it did educate the case on that basis. so would seem to me that one out, would be to say a proper understanding of shaw is a concept made on a district specific basis at that the plaintiffs here didn't propound cognizable claims under shaw and that would be one resolution.

the record is somewhat murky on this. judge thompson did say that the claims were district by district specific. another option might be dorky to the correct standard en route to the district court on remand to sort out whether the plaintiff -- >> but you don't deny that is the what policy can refer to every district where every majority-minority district in the state? >> no, we don't deny that what our point is that's not enough to trigger strict scrutiny. you have to look into what it's ever been in a manner that is interrogation a tradition districting criteria district by district. >> i do want to present if you give them your best answer to. if the policy says we are going to prioritize this particular criteria, which here was the mistaken understanding of retrogression, if the policy says we are going to prioritize this over everything else, it

seems to me that's pretty good evidence of the violation. >> i guess i am just going to repeat myself, but if it's in derogation of traditional districting -- >> the policy says it's going to prioritize it over everything else. sometimes they might fail. sometimes you're not going to be able to prioritize it over everything else, but the intent is still to prioritize it over everything else. >> let me take a step back because i think it might help to put in this context. a challenge, a shaw challenge, is the challenge is a challenge to officially neutral government action. those lines are usually neutral. they may in fact reflect the violation of the constitution under shaw if please predominate in the placement of those lines of derogation of additional

districting criteria. that's what you got to prove. the mere existenc that's what you got to prove. the mere existence of this motive doesn't prove it for each that's what you got to prove. the mere existence of this motive doesn't prove it for each district and that support. i would like to raise one point in my remaining time going back to the question of what section five retrogression required. >> when you do that, will you also tell us what effective in the preclearance should have. >> yes. i think mr. pildes referred you to this charge, but the key thing is to look at not the difference between 2000 the complaint but the difference between a 1993 plan and the 2001 plan. the justice department cleared the 2001 plan that alabama submitted and you will see for every single district listed there with maybe one exception there were significant reductions in the minority percentages in this district. so alabama knew perfectly well that it was completely consistent with its obligations under section five to reduce the districts.

>> you asked for a remand. the result that will be all of them has to redistrict, is that right? >> yes. >> that would not be subject to section five? >> that is certainly correct. >> that's not a concern for you? >> it's not a concern for us but it is what it is. if on remand the district court concludes that some of these districts violated the constitution, then alabama will have -- the legislature will get its first chance to legislate a fix in section five won't be a basis for them to taking action. >> thank you, counsel. mr. brasher. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. i think the court should begin with the district court's fact-finding because the district court expressly found that race did not predominate

and the court can affirm on the basis and avoid addressing questions about section five and unlikely to arise again because of this court's decision in shelby county. on page 144, the district court expressly found that we did not impose a quota. the courts as we imposed quote no bright line rule. what the court meant was we preserve the core of existing districts, we followed pre-existing district lines, we followed roads, we follow county lines, municipal lines. we met the needs of incumbents. the plan that we passed is a status quo plan. the whole point of this plan was to preserve the status quo because the republican party had won a majority for the first time in 130 years. >> the other side says it was impermissible for you to preserve the status quo because the opportunity for minority voters in the majority-minority districts to participate in the electoral process had improved to the extent that maintaining the status quo would be

characterized as packing. >> well, two response to that. the first is that if you look at the amicus brief filed in support of me the part of a political scientist, they showed a black voter turnout and white voter turnout and registration actually equalized in 1998. so there actually is some difference between the districts and the new ones that we propose with respect to those criteria. the second point i guess i would take is our districting criteria, our nonracial redistricting criteria were coextensive with the objective here to preserve these majority black districts as they have been. the objective of these nonracial redistricting criteria was to preserve the status quo. that's what the united states solicitor general was getting at is that it's difficult to disentangle the notion that we should preserve the status quo with a majority black districts. >> is it fair to read the

pleadings and the submission in this case as saying that the state did not defend this plan on the basis that it was for partisan purposes, but that it was to comply with section five? >> i don't -- >> is that a fair reading of the red brief and what the district court found that? >> i don't think it's fair reading of either and this is a reason why. with respect to specific districts when they were challenge, we were able to respond and say this was for partisan political reasons. one of the statistics was senate district 11 which was challenged by the alabama democratic conference and the court held that the changes to the district were based on politics. with respect to the plan as a whole, our response has always been there's a lot of factors that we needed on the plan as a whole and what it's going in the

specific issue. it's important the planets have never proposed a redistricting plan that meets our race-neutral redistricting criteria especially the 2% deviation in population to legislature adopted. that's important for three reasons. >> are you saying that is a pleading requirement, that they had to come in with a plan that meets all the rest of your criteria? >> i do not believe that is a pleading requirement. i think it's important for three reasons. first, the legislature adopted a 2% deviation to end of the previous partisan gerrymandering that the democrats adopted in 2001 where they underpopulated the majority black district and overpopulate majority white district and republican face of the state. that's why the plaintiff brought to partisan gerrymandering claim in the district court below. the second reason, in cromartie the court held the first step is to show there some conceive a way to do this differently that creates greater racial balance. the fact they've never produced a plan that does that is a serious problem. that makes sense because he going to see if race was

predominate, you take race out and then you run it again and to see what happens. >> let me give you some numbers from some of these districts. 52 company needed to add in a -- 1145 african-americans in order to maintain the percentage of african-american voters which was your number two criterion. you added 1143. you missed it by two. 55 you need to add 6981. you added 6994. sd 23, 15,069. you hit it at 50,185. those numbers speak for themselves, don't they? in each of these cases were determined disregarding other criteria to maintain the black voting age population. >> i don't think that shows that for two reasons. i agree with you that states solicitor general the question is whether we supported race-neutral districting criteria. >> that was just a coincidence?

>> no, but that goes to my second point. those house district you're reading off are over in birmingham. >> you hit that 73% exactly. >> that's my point. there are at least going to be some of those districts in birmingham that are 73% black. i don't believe in a place where there's more than two or thousand people and 73% them up like you need to supporting race-neutral redistricting greater to draw a 73% black district. >> i think you kind of do actually because you are trying to repopulate these districts, and many of these districts, there are many, many, many african-americans. as you suggested there are also white people. you did it so you completely replicated the exact percentage figure. >> i will give you another example of what i mean. house district 67 which we talk about is a single county district. it's always been a single county district. it's always going to be 70%

black because that county is 70% black. i think the same thing could be said about many of the neighborhoods in birmingham, is that these neighborhoods are 73% black and that's how we hit those numbers. they haven't proven otherwise. the failure to proposing 2% plan is important because a 10% plan are drastically different from a 2% plan. it's like comparing a plan with 100 districts to one with 180. they are senate districts can vary by 14,000 people and ours can only vary by around 2000 people. even though these plans are different with respect to the criteria that the legislature adopted, many of the districts have the same black population percentage as our district. this is clearest if you look at page 36 of our brief where we lay out the senate districts. you will look and see senate district 18, 19, 20, some of the

district justice kagan was talking about are almost exactly the same and all three points. if you look at district 33 it's exactly the same in our plan in the black caucus of proposed win. the evidence was the only we could draw senate district three with a different black population -- >> what about senate district 26? >> it was above 70% black in the previous plan at its about 70% black and our plan and in the black caucus is plan. it's not exactly on target but the plaintiff testified that the area of montgomery city were talking but here is 99% black. because that was one of the senate districts that they actually challenged, we have good-faith credibility determination from the trial court because the drafters testified about why they made the changes to senate district 26 and they said because of the way population shifted they had to change and a join district, senate district 30 which require changes to all the rest of the district. that left a rural county south of montgomery.

they explain what they did is they took part of former senate district 26, took it out to make a way to connect the rural crenshaw county to the rest of senate district 25, which is already predominate in rural. >> a solicitor general you look at the district it has a bizarre shape. it's to pull in predominate african-american areas and exclude predominantly white areas. is he correct? >> i respectfully disagree with him about that. if you look at the comparison map, you can see a comparison between the former district and the current district. what people see is up at -- i'm sorry, let me try and orient myself to the left part of montgomery county is where the former district used to be. it was part of district 25 it came into the middle of the district, came in the middle of it. what the drafters did is they do the lines closer to the city of montgomery and to preserve that part of senate district 25.

the only thing they did was they took some precincts in of along those lines and remove them from senate district 25 to senate district 26. i want to correct something that my friend the solicitor general said. we didn't just move black voters into the district. we also that hispanic voters into that district. we would like voters in that district. >> usually in these cases you're looking at the funny shaped districts and are trying to figure out from the shape and some other matters where the race has been used instead of traditional districting criteria. this is a very sort of sweet generous shaw claim because the principal evidence in the case is not all that circumstantial stuff that we usually do. it's a policy statement from the state that says race

non-retrogression is going to be our principal criterion except for reynolds, and then include testimony from the people who are applying that policy statement that they thought that meant maintaining the black voting age population, something which is a mistaken understanding of what retrogression entails. you don't have to look at all the circumstantial evidence about the shape of districts when you have a policy statement from the state saying this is our number one criterion except for reynolds and this is how we understand it in such away that it's going to ensure that a 60% district stays 60% district, and the 52% district stays at 52% district and so on. >> just two quick responses to that, justice kagan. the first is that the state is always going to say that comply with federal law was a top priority because federal law is supreme. >> this is much more than that. this is very specific saying where the two legislators

principally in charge of this said this is what we understand the requirements are, that we're going to maintain the black voting age population in each district. >> that brings me to my second point which is that imagine had we done the same thing that the plaintiffs are suggesting and we had hired a political scientist to tell us that 55% should be the target. i think they are bringing effectively a circumstantial case. they have the fact that we have said this was our objective under section five -- >> justice kagan's question points up the fact that the defenders of this plan did not rely on the fact that it was a political gerrymandering and, of course, they said was the 2% call, but the basis was raised in order to comply with section five. >> and my point about that is certainly with respect to specific districts, they were

based on partisanship and so had they challenge specific districts, we would have responded in kind with respect to those specific districts. but they never challenge specific districts below. i think you and to justice alito's question, to my friends on the other side, i think you should look at document 194 was is the black caucus posttrial brief. although they mention an occasional specific district have any evidence. this is a circumstantial case because -- >> considerable evidence on the senate district 26. >> senate district 26 which challenged by the alabama democratic conference which has now brought a shaw claim with respect to district 16. because the challenge that district you have a credibility determination by the district court about the testimony with respect to that specific district. >> let me ask you about this section five mistake peak isn't it so that both the district court and alabama were laboring under the impression that

retrogression meant you have to keep the same numbers? >> the district court made an express fact-finding here that our goal was to prevent substantial reductions in black population in the pre-existing majority black districts. >> and it is a misunderstanding of what section five requires, then the whole thing is infected by that mistake. >> i disagree with respect to about it being a misunderstanding because i think in 2006 congress told us we could not diminish the ability to elect a black voters in a pre-existing majority black district. my friend professor pildes testified against inclusion of the language in congress and he said it includes that language it would lock into place the majority black districts in the south. if you cannot diminish to elect that means if there's a safe majority black district with its 100% chance that black voters can elect the candidates of choice, you cannot drop that to would have a 50% chance of 60% chance. that's what we're setting out to

do. >> mr. brasher, i guess i don't understand response to justice ginsburg. there are different interpretations of what those 2006 amendments mean, right? under one interpretation it was basically a codification of justice souter's opinion, and so majority-minority districts could be transformed into influence districts. another stricter interpretation perhaps no majority-minority districts had to stay majority-minority districts. >> well, this is what justice souter said in his dissent. he said if racial element consistently vote in separate

blocks, which is conceded they did in alabama, decreasing the proportion of black voters were generally reduce the chance that the minority groups favored candidate would be elected to the majority opinion agreed with that as well. the district court in georgia versus ashcroft which i think that congress will think that congress was critical that you said if existing opportunities of minority voters to exercise their franchise are robust, a proposed plan that leaves those voters with nearly every's welfare chance of electing a candidate of choice may constitute retrogression. >> i want to know what you think about the practicalities of sending this back. assume in the back of my mind just relying on state policy is this. a state legislator gets up and says, in our state there's a history of discrimination against black people. there are very few black

representatives in this body. i would like to find a way of drawing district lines so that we have a few more, okay? that's the normal way this case comes up. this doesn't offer us an odd situation. i don't know that statement should automatically disqualify his plan. maybe we should look a little further into it and see what they actually did. suppose i start there. and then i say okay, you go proceed district by district. i suspect they will be able to prove that at least in some districts, at least in some, the statement of the legislature here did prevail and did make a difference. now, if that's so they don't have section five to rely on as a difference. i don't know what the defense is possibly going to be. it seems we can't even think what the defense is, why don't they just redo this plan over and the legislature and sector but a lot of time and trouble?

>> a couple of responses. the first is -- >> i thought it was a lot of trouble to redo a plan. is it not a lot of trouble? >> it is a lot of trouble. >> so my point of my question is you want to go to the a lot of trouble before a lot of extra trouble in court proceedings, or you want to go right off up and get over with? i expect to have attached to that and i'm not to get one of you. i want to know what your response is. >> to respond to a pointed question, this plan was passed after 21 hearings held throughout the state of alabama but it was passed after extensive legislative negotiations it was passed in a special session that was called for purposes of enacting a redistricting plan. we do not want to go back through the process -- >> of course you don't but my question is, is there going to be a defense left that could stop you from having to go back to? >> yes. i think the united states agrees that the question is whether

there's a strong basis in evidence for us to believe at the time would pass this plan american progress action fund. i think we have that defense even if we're litigating district by district. >> what does it mean to comply with section five? that's where you can say it strongly, everybody agrees that counts, compliance with section five, strong interest in doing. but if you think section five means you've got to preserve the same numbers and that's not what section five means, then the whole premise on which the district court based its decision was wrong. >> i don't think so because i think the district court's decision was premised on the fact that race was not the predominant factor. you go to the question of section five. we adopted a reasonable section five preclearance strategy. it was the exact same thing georgia did in 2005 and that congress had in the house report to reauthorize section five -- >> if that turns out to be wrong, i guess you're still not guilty of using race. you're still trying to comply

with section five as opposed to being racist, right? >> that's exactly right. they did make intentional discrimination claims in the district court. >> if the district court said that race was not the purpose, what in the district court's view was the purpose of the player in? >> i don't think there's a need for this court to identify one specific purpose. >> i'm asking in this case, what do you think? was it the presumption that they want to assure preclearance under section five and for that reason use race? so when you say the district court said race was not the purpose, it was close to the purpose because they were trying to use section five and use race for that reason. >> it was certainly -- >> that's a very fine distinction. >> it was a purpose that went into the majority black districts, but it was not the predominant motive in the way these lines -- these laws were drafted.

>> don't you have to use race to comply with section five? is there any way without using race as? >> there is not. >> you don't use race in this way, mr. brasher. nobody was a section that required you to maintain a 78% district and 70% district was no longer needed with respect to the group's ability to elect a candidate of choice. >> i respectfully disagree with that. we followed the same preclearance strategy that georgia filed in 2005. congress made a record in 2006 to try to reauthorize section five. part of that record was saint george's plan which kept all other majority black districts exactly as it was a good thing. we did the same thing in this cycle that other states did in this redistricting cycle did but we did the same thing the plaintiffs did when they were in charge of the legislature in 2001. the only difference is they try to hit targets from the 1983 plan as the war in 1983 and we try to keep districts the same

from 2010-2012. >> could i follow up on justice breyer's exploration of what would happen if this was done over? i assume section five would not be a consideration so long as a new coverage for them is not adopted by congress, is that correct? >> correct. if the legislature were to pass new plans i do not think they would have to comply. >> the legislature could do whatever it it wants it applies to abortion rather than on race. >> is correct. >> what degree with the legislature be justified in doing, and what degree to would be required to take into account the degree if any to which section to impose a something like a retrogression requirement? and do we know what that might be? >> i really honestly do not know how section two witnesses to apply in this circumstance because by complying with section five, we necessary complied with section two because it's a lesser standard. the fact we could have done, if

the plans are vacated, they are very likely to just be the same plans. >> what would happen if on a do over, the objective was to produce maximum republican representation in both houses of the legislature. and in doing that there was a drastic reduction in the number of african-american senators and representatives. would that be a violation of section two? >> not necessary. there would be a lot more that would go into that analysis whether the violated section two. you would have to look at each individual district and see if they can make a section to claim. one of the issues is this plan actually does proportional representation to black voters in alabama. there are about 25% black voting age population in alabama and have about 25 majority black districts in the house and about 25% majority a district

announced in 25% majority like district in the senate. i do not know what would happen quite frankly if the court were to vacate these plans and the legislature were to just do a do over. to go back to the 2% deviation, these are sophisticated parties on the other side in this case with a sophisticated council. the reason they have never posed any way to do the own our own race-neutral redistricting criteria is because they know the 2% deviation prevents them from gerrymandering districts to help white democrats get elected. at 2% deviation was adopted at the beginning of this redistricting process of applying to study while there on the committee to come up with their own 2% plan. they just propose these 10% deviation plans in the legislature. we had a year of litigation to come up with their own 2% plan. they didn't do that. that's what the district court was getting at when it said, said race did not predominate. in addition court suggested you know what this case is wrote about, it's about the 2% population deviation.

>> you're suggesting that some necessity for 2% plan but there is no necessity for 2% plan. states have gone up to 10% without getting into trouble under reynolds. that can't insulate your plan from this kind of challenge, can it? >> i think it can. and for this reason is because we're in charge of accounting our criteria. and under easley is the under easley is a place what you can raise predominate in the plan, the first step of that and ease his way is to propose some other way of meeting race-neutral redistricting criteria that provides greater racial balance. they have a propose any way to do that. so not only have been that proposed a 2% plan that set of criteria, but the actual

plans in the propose are not that different. i think of the release of fact the police have never proposed any way to do this redistricting that actually meets the states race-neutral redistricting criteria finds you cannot find this was erroneous. i think the court should affirm on that basis. let me address a question of remand. united states has said that the court should remand this case. but the united states' position on that is internally inconsistent because the trainee decrease the population percentages alone in the districts are not sufficient for the plaintiffs met the burden of proof to show that raise predominate. that's the only evidence they introduced about these district and that's what the district court said these are statewide challenges because the only evidence in the record, whatever they may have said, the only evidence in the record about these district was just population and statistics. >> you'd look at the complaint, when i look at the complaint i suspect i will find something about districts. it's sort a true sort of taking the u.s. point of view, it's quite clear to me anyway that

the court decided on the basis of a statewide plan. so if it's wrong about that, then they ought to have a chance to go back and make their claim district by district and have a decision on that basis. >> once again, they may have brought claims with respect to each individual district. i don't think you do. i think you look at the complaint you won't find it. the only evidence to introduce about any of these district are the statistics alone. the united states agrees that's insufficient for them to met their burden of proof. so i don't see how you could reverse the district fact-finding as chlamydomonas that race didn't predominate given to all the editors was statistics. i think the court should affirm the basis of the fact-finding and not reach questions about section five. >> thank you, counsel. professor pildes you have two minutes remaining.

>> if i can i would like -- earlier one of the did you say that if you look at the division of precincts and it was done on the basis of this policy. in almost every district. was that shown below? >> we introduced all of the precincts split information below and in our proposed findings of fact, document number 196, some of which is briefs. we made exactly this point. >> besides the statistics what other evidence did you present? >> your honor, we speak i can go back to the joint appendix but i just want a summary of it from you. >> the key fact we presented i think that hasn't been discussed here is that the alabama constitution prohibits the splitting of counties. they say they had a supremacy clause obligation to meet these racial targets, and that meant they could override the alabama constitution's protection of county boundaries and all other

state traditional districting principles. and the 2% will work the same way. if that's actually a federal constitutional requirement, they can also override the key protections against partisan gerrymandering. the very few that exist, the only hard constraints, the county boundaries are political subdivision boundaries, and it means they can manipulate all important county delegation in the alabama legislature by breaking counties into multiple districts and then decided who runs the county by putting their district in there. a second question with answers that i think it's been very important in this discussion, and by the way i don't want to lose track of the fact that on remand, the alabama legislature will have to comply with the whole county provisions, or at least they can't use this federal excuse to split them. the way most states do this is they either start with traditional districting

principles in the core of existing districts and advocacy at the end have maintained the same number of majority-minority districts, all or if they start with the number at the beginning which do not require two, they ask what's necessary in current conditions to preserve the ability to elect today. >> that's what alabama did. ..

raised near fort recovery of ohio. c-span will have coverage of the part in starting up 2:15 eastern and the national journal reports it's been staying in a washington, d.c. hotel. the $350 a night room was paid for by the turkey federation. the names mac and cheese spent the night in the entryway covered by what shavings. stanley mcchrystal took part in a conference on the civic engagement at american university's school of public affairs where he along with civic business education leaders addressed a range of topics related to modern citizenship, activism and corporate social responsibility. he received an award for his national service. you can see the events tonight starting at eight eastern. at eight on c-span retiring

members of congress tonight michigan democratic senator carl levin and republican ralph hall. he started in 1979 and a talked about tax issues in congress. here's what he had to say on that topic. >> there is no economic purpose when microsoft or apple are able to shift their revenues to ireland or puerto rico or someplace to avoid paying taxes. there is no economic purpose when one of these new intellectual property giants produce good stuff. i am not putting apple with apple. they produce wonderful products with my quarrel with them and other companies like them that have huge profits is the way that they avoid paying taxes on those products and shifting the profits and intellectual property to themselves.

to their own corporations in the tax savings to avoid paying taxes. those are the loopholes that we need to close and we need the revenue from that in order to avoid another round of sequestration which is an absolutely mindless way to budget where everything gets cut including the national institutes of health. we are in the middle of a ebola problem and it has an automatic cookie cutter approach. we have to end end that ended most of us not all of us, not the tea party, not the libertarians in the senate and the house but most of us really want to end the sequestration. >> you can see that entire conversation when c-span continues its interviews with retiring members of congress and a start at eight eastern.

comments about the programming. here are a few that we received about q-and-a. >> i just watched your program question and answer. i find it very offensive to put someone on line for an hour on the air that knows very little about islam and very little about the history. she misquoted the koran and the life of mohammed and it's absolutely not accurate and one can refute on a very scholarly basis and i find it very offensive and i'm shocked someone that watches and respects c-span to see this

program i'm completely shocked and i dare to say that it's the worst program i've seen in 20 years. >> i wanted to comment on the q-and-a on c-span with the author she has given the most complete and concise articulated explanation of the muslim religion in the modern world that i've not heard and i'm a religious scholar of over 65 years. she should be commended just for this piece. thank you very much, c-span. continue to let us know what you think about the programs. call (202)626-3400. e-mail comment@c-span.org or send a message at c-span hash tag comments. join the conversation, like us mike us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> president obama responded saying i have no sympathy for destroying your own communities. he went on to say they should be prosecuted. his comments came during remarks during chicago with the last speech on immigration in las vegas the hackers interrupted him. this is about a 35 minute. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> hello chicago. thank you so much. thank you so much. everybody have a seat. thank you so much.

happy early thanksgiving, everybody. it is good to be home. [applause] although it is cold in chicago. it was 60 degrees in washington. it's not 60 degrees here. let me begin by thanking the center and we appreciate you. [applause] thank you so much. i hope you don't mind because there's been a lot of stuff in the news. i need to begin by saying a few words over what happened in the past days not just in ferguson the very common our neighbor to the south but all across america. as many of you know a verdict

came down or a grand jury made a decision yesterday that upset a lot of people and as i said last night, the frustrations that we've seen are not just about a particular incident. they have deep roots in many communities of color. we have the sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly. that may not be true everywhere and it's certainly not true for the vast majority of law enforcement officials, but that is an impression that folks have, and it's not just made up. it is rooted in realities. that had existed have existed in this country for a long time. as i said last night, there are productive ways of responding and expressing those frustrations and there are destructive ways of responding.

burning buildings, torching cars come at easterling property, putting people at risk that's distracted and there is no excuse for it. those are criminal acts and people should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts. what we saw is people gathering and overwhelmingly peaceful protests in chicago and new york and los angeles and other cities. we have seen young people that are organizing and young people began to have real conversations about how do we change the situation so that there's more trust between law enforcement and some of these communities. and of those are necessary conversations to have. we are here to talk about

immigration, but part of what makes america this remarkable place is being american doesn't mean you have to look a certain way or have a certain last name or come from a certain place. it has to do with a commitment to ideas, beliefs and certain values and if any part of the community doesn't feel welcome that's something that puts all of us at risk and we all have to be concerned about it. so my message to those people that are constructively moving forward trying to organize, mobilize and ask hard and pertinent questions about how we address the situation i want all of those folks to know that their president is going to work with them. and i think that you will find a lot of --

[applause] separate and apart from the particular circumstances in ferguson which i'm careful not to speak to because it is not my job as president to comment on ongoing investigations in specific cases, that the frustrations people have generally cover those are rooted in hard truth that have to be addressed. and so those who are prepared to work constructively, your president will work with you and a lot of folks i be leaving law enforcement and a lot of folks in the city hall and the governor's offices across the country want to work with you as well. so as part of that i've instructed the attorney general eric holder off just to

investigate what happened up also identify specific steps we can take together to set up a series of regional meetings focus on building trust in our communities. and next week we will bring together state and local officials and law enforcement and community leaders and faith leaders to start identifying very specific steps that we can take to make sure that law enforcement is fair and is being applied equally to every person in this country. and we know certain things work. we know if we train the police properly that that improves policing and makes people feel the system is fair. we know when we have a police force representative of the communities it's serving that makes a difference. [applause]

we know when there's clear accountability and transparency when something happens that makes a difference, so there are specific things we can do and the key is for us to lift up the best practices in practices and work city by city and state by state, county by county all across the country because the problem is not just ferguson, it's an american problem and we have to make sure that we are bringing about change. the bottom line is nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts. i've never seen a civil rights law or healthcare bill or immigration bill result because the car got burned. it happened because people vote, because people mobilized, it

happens because people look at what are the best policies to solve the problem. that's how you move something forward. [applause] so don't take the short-term easy route and just engage in the district of behaviors. take the long-term hard but lasting route of working with me and government officials to bring about real change. and to those that think what happened in ferguson is a reason for violence i have no sympathy for that. i have no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities. but for the overwhelming majority of people who just feel frustrated and pain because they

get the sense that maybe some communities are not treated fairly or some individuals are not seen as worthy as others, i understand that and i want to work with you and i want to move forward with you. your president will be right there with you. that's what we need to focus on. let's be constructive. now i appreciate your patience because i know you came to talk about immigration, but this is relevant because part of what america is about is stitching together folks from different backgrounds and different faiths and ethnicities. that's what makes us special. and the let's face it sometimes that's hard. sometimes that is hard to do.

but it's worthwhile. it's worth giving. i was traveling in asia. if you go to japan they don't have problems with certain folks being discriminated against because mostly everybody is japanese. [laughter] i mean that here, part of what is wonderful about america is also what makes our democracy hard sometimes. because sometimes we get attached to a particular tribe or race or religion and then we start treating other folks differently. and that sometimes has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration. if you think about the history of immigration in the country can each way there have been periods where the folks that are already here someone say i don't want those folks.

even though the only people that have the right to say that our native americans. [applause] is fitting that it is fitting that i've come here back home to chicago because chicago has always been a city of immigrants and that is still true in the neighborhood for defining the city. especially on the north side appear. [laughter] we have everything appear. you go to the public schools around here and you've got 50, 60, 70 different languages being spoken from andersonville to chinatown, ukrainian village, immigrants have made this city

their home. we are swedish and polish and german and italian. everybody is irish on st. patrick's day. [applause] we've got names like pat quinn, our governor. [applause] and luis gutierrez, our congressman. [applause] jan schakowsky, another congresswoman. brad schneider, congressman. [applause] rahm emanuel. [applause] all mixed up.

i don't mean him, i mean all of us. [laughter] it is true he speaks a language that can be translated in front of children. [laughter] although he is the mayor now so i'm sure he doesn't do that anymore. anyone that has seen the silhouette of steeples as diverse as the houses of worship that they deserve to be belonged to and the communities that call those neighborhoods home to this state. today we are here at a polish immunity center. [applause]

i was just meeting with a group of the business leaders are presenting people that come from mexico, china, poland, ireland. you just heard the successful business owner. i had a thing for the united states. so 16 years ago there was a shortage of irish pubs. [laughter] then he opened another restaurant and then another they became american citizens and for the very first time as americans on november 4. you can often find their son also named billy charming the

heck out of customers all hours of the day and night. he had gone from ten workers to more than 250 workers. you just heard what he said. this is what immigrants do. one study a few years ago found that immigrants start more than a quarter of all new businesses in the united states kerry at one quarter of them. another study found that immigrants and their children start over 40% of the fortune 500 companies. being a nation of immigrants gives us the huge entrepreneurial advantage over nations. if you are willing to strike out go someplace new. you have that sense of being able to take risk and being able to build something from scratch. you have that spirit. that's part of what the american

spirit is all about. it's part of what drove us across the front here. not feeling like what's in front of you is the only thing that's possible. but that something else is possible. and because of those businesses started by immigrants, we all benefit. it means more jobs. it means more growth for everybody. now as i said last week, our system has been broken for a long time. families that try to come here the right way to get stuck in line for years. business owners who treat their employees right often see the competition exploit undocumented workers to undercut businesses. all of us i think don't like the idea that if they can they can

reap the reward of living in america without its responsibilities. and there are people that want to increase to embrace to increase the risk of obesity is no way of have no way of coming out of the shadows getting right with the law. so stuck in a system that doesn't work for anybody. a year and a half ago we had a big majority democrats are republicans and independents come in the united states and they came together and passed a bipartisan bill to fix this broken system. the bill wasn't perfect. they didn't have everything i wanted or that any body wanted. it was a huge improvement we would've doubled the number of border patrol agents so if you were concerned about the illegal migration it would have made the borders that much tougher. it would have made it illegal immigration system smarter and

more fair and reduce the backlog & always from getting here. it would have given millions of people a chance to earn their citizenship the right way and independent experts said that over the next two decades the law would grow the economy and shrink the deficit and had the house the house of representatives allowed a yes or no vote on that kind of bill it would have passed. that's all they need to do is call the bill. it would be in the law right now and we would be on our way to solving the problems of the system. i would be implementing those provisions, but for a year and a half over 500 days republican leaders in the house simply refused to allow the vote.

they wouldn't let it come to the floor. i still believe the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of commonsense law. when i was talking to billy and other leaders, there were things that could only be solved by congress. but until then there are actions i had had the authority to take that would help make our immigration system more fair and just and i took them last week. [applause] so, we are devoting more resources for the law enforcement to stem the flow of the border and to speed up the return of those that do.

we are initiating smarter reforms to the high school that i can send graduates and onto pillars can stay and contribute to our economy. and i'm taking new steps to deal with possibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants including here in chicago. i said this before so i just want to be clear undocumented workers that broke the law should be held accountable. there was a particular category of those that may be dangerous of the small minority but it is a sickness sickness against one command that is why over the past six years, deportation of criminals are up 80%. and we will keep focusing on the limited enforcement resources on those that actually pose a threat to our security. ellen, not families. not families working hard to

make a better life for their kids. [inaudible shouting] [applause] >> okay. okay. that's fine. you've made your point. all right. [inaudible shouting] [inaudible shouting] >> okay. i've heard you. hispanic [inaudible shouting]

>> okay >> i understand. okay. listen. hold on, hold on. hold on. young lady, don't just -- don't just start yelling, young lady. why don't you sit down. listen. here cannot just say i've can i just say i've listened to you, i've heard you, i heard you. i've been respectful, i listened to your comments. [applause] nobody is removing you. i heard you, but you've got to

listen to me, to. and i understand you may disagree. [applause] i understand you may disagree. ..

so not everybody qualifies for being able to sign up and register, but the change in priorities applies to everybody. the point is that, though i understand why you might have yelled at me a month ago although i disagree with some of your characterizations, it doesn't make much sense to yell at me right now when we're making changes. [applause] so the point is -- but the point is, let's make sure that you get the facts and that you know exactly what we're doing. and then if you have disagreements, then you can work through all the immigrant rights organizations that we work with to try to address some of your concerns. right?

[applause] but here's what won't work. what won't work is folks -- what won't work is folks just shouting at each other. all right? so i've been respectful. i responded to your question. i'd ask you now to let me speak to all the other people who are here. all right? okay. [applause] [shouting] >> okay. it's good to be back in chicago. [laughter] because everybody has got something to say. but i'm not going to be able to have a conversation with each of you separately. so there are other ways of engaging. just sit down. i went off script for a pretty long time. i don't mind. i know people are passionate about this. but be respectful of everybody

who's here. all right? [applause] now, let me get to the point that i was making, which is even if we deported all the criminals, folks who had actually done bad things, there are millions of people here who are good people but have still broken the immigration laws. and they're found in every state, every race, every nationality. tracking down and rounding up and deporting millions of people is not realistic. it's not who we are. it's not what america should be. on the other hand -- and this sometimes is not acknowledged -- if you came here illegally, you are cutting in front of the line of the folks who were trying to come here legally, which also is not fair.

[applause] that's not fair. that doesn't make people bad people. but it does mean that you cut in front of the line -- because there are a lot of folks who are waiting to try to get here legally. so the deal that we're putting forward is this. if you've been here for more than five years, if you have children who are citizens or legal residents, if you register, and pass a criminal background check, and pay your fair share of taxes -- then you can apply to stay temporarily. you can come out of the shadows. you can get right with the law. this isn't amnesty, or legalization, or even a pathway to citizenship -- because that's not something i can do. that is something only congress can do. it also doesn't apply to anyone who has come to this country recently, or might come illegally in the future -- because borders do mean something. so it's accountability. it's a common-sense approach

that allows me to exercise legal authorities that i have in order to make sure that we're preventing families from being broken apart. and i am the first one to acknowledge that part of the reason that this has become important to me is, you're right, there have been times where families got broken apart -- while i've been president. and it's heartbreaking. that's not right. so until congress does a complete fix, what we're saying is, if you have deep ties here, and you start paying your fair share of taxes, then we won't deport you and separate you from your kids. [applause] and even if you do not fully qualify, we will still try to reprioritize how we're enforcing the laws -- which we have to do

-- in a way that is less likely to break families apart. because the system is broken. and one of the reasons why this is important is because immigrants are good for the economy. we keep on hearing that they're bad. but a report by my council of economic advisers put out last week shows how the actions we're taking will grow our economy for everybody. by 2024, the actions that i'm taking will add at least $90 billion to our gross domestic product. [applause] and this economic growth will reduce our deficit by $25 billion. these actions will grow our labor force by nearly 150,000 people, and they will boost wages for american-born workers.

now, if we passed a comprehensive law, it would be even better. we'd grow even faster, and the deficit would come down even faster. but even the steps we're taking now will make a difference. and these actions are lawful. they're not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions that have been taken by every president for the past 50 years. [applause] when i hear some of my republican friends talk about this, i try to remind them president reagan took action to keep families together. the first president bush took action to shield about 1.5 million people -- that was about 40% of undocumented immigrants in america at the time. so when folks in congress question my authority to make our immigration system work better, i've got one answer. pass a bill. pass a bill.

go ahead and pass a bill. [applause] i want to work with both parties on a more permanent legislative solution. i know that's what luis gutierrez wants, and jan schakowski wants, and brad schneider wants. they've been at the forefront fighting for a more permanent solution. and the day i sign a comprehensive immigration bill into law, then the actions i take will no longer be necessary. but in the meantime, i'm going to do what i can to make this system work better. and in the meantime, washington shouldn't let disagreements over one issue be a deal-breaker on every issue. [applause] that's not how our democracy works. you can't disagree with one thing and then just say, all right, i'm going to take my ball away and go home. and congress certainly should not shut down the government

again over this. americans are tired of gridlock. we're ready to move forward. [applause] as you can imagine, i've gotten a lot of letters and a lot of emails about immigration over the past few days. and some have said it was a mistake for me to act. but then others remind me why i had to. one letter i got last week came from brett duncan, of dawsonville, georgia. and brett is a republican, and so he doesn't really agree with me about anything. well, maybe everything. his ancestors came over from scotland before the civil war, so his immigration status is pretty much settled. [laughter] but he's done missionary work overseas.

he knows what it's like to be a stranger. and over the years he's gotten to know a lot of the new immigrants in his community. and here's what he said. he said, their children are as american as i am. it would be senseless to deport their parents. it would be bad for america. i believe, brett wrote, that a human being, created in the very image of almighty god, is the greatest resource we have in this country. [applause] so we're not a nation that kicks out strivers and dreamers who want to earn their piece of the american dream. we are a nation that fundamentally is strong, is special, is exceptional, because we find ways to welcome people, fellow human beings, children of god, into the fold, and harness

their talents to make the future brighter for everybody. we didn't raise the statue of liberty with her back to the world. we did it facing the world -- her light, her beacon shining. and whether we are -- whether we cross the atlantic, or the pacific, or the rio grande, we all shared one thing, and that's the hope that america would be the place where we could believe as we choose, and pray as we choose, and start a business without paying a bribe, and that we could vote in an election without fearing reprisal, and that the law would be enforced equally for everybody, regardless of what you look like or what your last name was. that's the ideal that binds us all together. that's what's at stake when we have conversations about immigration. that's what's at stake when we have conversations about

ferguson -- are we going to live up to those ideals of who we are as a people. and it falls on all of us to hand down to our kids a country that lives up to that promise, where america is the place where we can make it if we try. [applause] so, thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> that even with the president from yesterday. today the obama administration is proposing to cut levels of smog forming pollution linked to asthma, lung damage and other health problems. it is considering the rules to lower threshold for pollution.

here's also members of congress are reacting. kevin mccarthy tweets the epa's latest those who regulation kicks the ladder out from underneath us. dianne feinstein, today the epa took a step -- >> while the president will pardon the national thanksgiving turkey this afternoon in his annual ceremony in the rose garden. the 2014 national thanksgiving turkey and its alternate were hatched and raised in ohio. c's ben wells live coverage at 2:15 p.m. eastern, again on c-span. tonight o on c-span2, said the two, said that this is an educational to address a range of topics were there to modern citizenship, activism and social

responsibility. here's a portion of his remarks. >> we tend to volunteer when we know we need to. we tend to do that kind of thing. we tend to step forward and take responsibility when times are hard. i will tell you right now-this is the moment in america. we just look around and we instinctively know we have to change the concept of citizenship. if we go to many people in america they think if they vote and they pay for taxes, they did their job as a citizen but that's not what citizenship this. the country is no more than a covenant between people who decide to be a nation and its relationship between people that has a responsibility to end for each other. that's what citizens are. they are jointly bound to take care of each other. so the concept of citizenship instead of being small and being entitlements or limit

responsibility, is expansive can what you are and what you are about and why you do or don't do what you do. i think citizenship in america has eroded for lots of reasons. but it's eroded to the point where we need to stop and look at the real problem. we can look at partisanship and politics, economic inequality, at the polarization of different parts of our society. but if we look at the problem and we want to fix it instead of going after each individual thing, and if we want to take a big step it will take a big idea. >> again, part of an annual conference on civic engagement held at american university in washington, d.c. with retired general stanley mcchrystal. you can see the entire event tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> this thanksgiving week c-span is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. watch tonight through thursday

at 8 p.m. eastern. >> what we've accomplished in 36 years added to want to look back at the so much as to look forward to the next couple of months. are somethings i would like to do. one is to get my defense authorization bill passed. this is an annual effort, a major effort involving large amounts of staff. i also want to finish up some work on the permanent subcommittee on investigations, looking at some gimmicks which are used to avoid taxes. >> i've been a member of congress for 34 years, and the time i get become if i was a manager for baseball or football team and i had a 34 and one, i would be in the hall of fame. it doesn't bother me. really didn't want me to get beat because i wasn't just that i'm going but i had 18 co-chairmen they were chairman of my 18 counties in my district

that were supporting me and wanted me to run. and i did. >> also on thursday thanksgiving day, we will take an american history tour of various native american tribes. that's at 10 a.m. eastern following "washington journal." at 1:30 p.m. at the groundbreaking ceremony of the new diplomacy center in washington with former secretaries of state and supreme court justices clarence thomas, samuel alito and sonia sotomayor at 8:30 p.m. eastern. that's this thanksgiving weekend on c-span. for the complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> the carnegie endowment for international peace healthy discussion on radical extremism this week in washington. experts examined the increase in such violence across afghanistan to the street and right. this is about 90 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody and welcome to the session on jihadi movement in afghanistan, syria and iraq. i am the director of the program but it is my particular pleasure this afternoon to say that this event is cosponsored on the middle east program as well. in that regard i'm happy to have our dear colleague with us. the question is entirely in the title, jihadists movement in afghanistan, syria and iraq. what are the reasons for the sentiment that we see today? where are we going? where are we leading to and what is the part of the responsibility of the policy itself? to what extent is a social sediment or to what extent is the result of perhaps not so smart policy over the past decade or even longer. this is not the only question.

this is the least part of this question we will try to address this afternoon. to do so, we have three speakers, or for speakers, gilles dorronsoro who has been in the past resident fellow here at the carnegie endowment and a resident fellow who currently serves as professor of political science at the university, and has been numerous reports on an article in afghanistan, syria, including afghanistan ending the revolution. next we'll have arthur quesnay, a fellow at the french institute for near east studies, efp oh, send which is located in three places actually, damascus, amman and beirut. and which is part of a larger network of some 27 french

research to to to cross the world. is also a member of young french researchers to get accustomed to the field, and i insist on the field in the countries where they are residents. and third we will have adam baczko korea works as, the violence fellow at the university. he is a student in political science in paris, in generally have no research. we needed no less than colonel, u.s. air force reserve. i am namely of course my college frederic wehrey who's a senior attaché at the middle east program and was previously at, a fellow at the rand corporation.

and has been to a member of field research. he focuses on political affairs, media and u.s. policy in the middle east, and we could think of no better discussant in hand for this afternoon. so with no further ado i will leave the floor, and then will move on to the other speakers and then as usual we will have a q&a at the end of it. >> thank you frederic for the kind words and all the work for the organization. it's a pleasure to be back at the carnegie endowment. it's a very peaceful invasion by the way. so what's the question? we work in iraq, afghanistan and syria, and the u.s. policy is some kind of enigma.

it's a difficult one to understand from the field from outside. the question we're going to try to understand is the u.s. policy is at least, at least partially responsible of details we are seeing now in afghanistan, iraq and syria. and trying to answer this question i would like first to say that in the pre-crisis, the same, the same moments in the u.s. policy, first intervention. and most of the time too much money, too much something. the second time is -- stomach but not kind of slow and control. something or somebody in washington decided to deal with this crisis.

the third step is because the situation is totally out of control we are going, we are obliged to be back. and more or less it is describing a crisis, the u.s. policy in these three crises. first, if we have after you to be allied. most of the time were speaking with pashtun i would like to speak about allies pulling. allies building -- for different reason. been the withdrawal was not done in very reasonable condition because it was by political considerations in washington, and it makes the abuse of the fragility of the producers, especially in iraq and

afghanistan. and then -- why? because the u.s. is coming back with allies on the ground. and what we're seeing now in iraq and syria, what we are going to seek the next two years in afghanistan is -- stomach when you don't have any more allies. so first i'm going to speak about building allies, then we will speak about withdrawal and the consequences, and then will finish with the consequences of being back. the first is building allies. so here we are mostly to problems. the first problem, it took me a few years to understand, what was exactly this problem is the local society by the u.s.

administration. and more than that, inside the army or inside the u.s. diplomacy you have a description, a very particular definition of the local society. because afghan, iraqi answering societies. the first wrong idea is almost without exception, it's overplaying, the u.s. is overplaying the local ethic, the tribe, all that is about the fragmentation in this society. at the same time, it is as if the tribes were the basis of the political basis in these countries. this is a very wrong idea. it is -- stomach state-building

in these countries was ambiguous. on the one hand, you know, you plenty of money to build state institution in iraq and in afghanistan. at the same time you have plenty of practices from the military, or ngos, whatever, that are destroying the very idea of a state in these countries. the result of that is a situation where of course state-building was mostly a failure. the second point i would make is about sex arianism. the u.s. policy beyond the question of the local 10 -- stomach on sectarianism, the differences between -- [inaudible] and it's a self-fulfilling

prophecy to an extent, especially in iraq where in 2030-4 you remember the country was not divided between shia, sunni, so one. so this is also an amount of the perception. the second problem is about risk assessment. one of the most housing aspects of u.s. policy in iraq and in afghanistan has been the fact that there was a lot of attention to the input and output, how much money you put in the pipe, how many men you put in the country, but not much about the outcomes. so, in fact, all american strategy is in the question, is about what do we do? do we need more men, more money, more in this crisis? but what are we going to do with

it? and the most perfect example of this is a surgeon in afghanistan. the searching in afghanistan is a moment where the amount of money spent in this country is obliged to create huge, totally different from all processes. ..

to be sure they have the respect for the legal opposition and this is the key element in width to the government. as far as i know i didn't check this morning but still no government in afghanistan. there was a huge amount in the diplomatic community and more than six months later so all

these processes that need to conclude for the first time the way the u.s. is using its way to destroy the country, to destroy the allies that are supposed to be built and we have to think about for the future. >> thinks. now to continue after the withdrawal of the u.s. forces in serious quickly after the withdrawal the institutions led by the american administration and the afghan regime they were not about to ruin the country so for two reasons that i would say first there was a huge gap between the elites mostly the

process people are elected with the support of the international committee with any legitimacy that should be a democratic process. and then so the only way for the people to rule, the money that is put inside a police security forces in iraq you cannot find a solution can you cannot negotiate, you have only the security forces in the institutions to deal with. then they must made by american forces in iraq wasn't working so well after the withdrawal because of the support as you

know. that puts people make them not to negotiate with the people to control the territory where they have to deal with. the second point is in afghanistan mostly iraq to deal with the minorities so the islands between kurdish and shia in to stabilize and find a way to stabilize the situation seemed to decrease on the rule. that was working in 2011 when the u.s. withdrawal from iraq

the group ratings were mostly destroyed and the group didn't have any more of their resources to fight and a lot of people left the insurgent groups to join the institutions and try to get the normal situations but they meant by that maliki government just after the withdrawal of the u.s. forces after they tried to arrest and that is a crisis to come back to al qaeda. in afghanistan we are confronting the deal between the network of one side to try to

take more and more position on that very because it would be inside of the afghan institutions. and then to come back later and response but of course there were some radical groups have come back onto the territory. the second point is the withdrawal of the forces with the failure of the afghan army as we saw to the end of the iraqi insurgency and isis. there was so much in the

institutions of the regime but there was no cohesion inside of the witch we tried to create in iraq or afghanistan. the army was to be on the field with the army at the front plaintiff was amazing to see how much because one chief commander maybe with the kurdish and no one but contrasted. this lack of relationship can't explain of course if recommendations -- the fragmentation that was the main base north of iraq and wasn't about to conference the group as it is coming back to iraq. in afghanistan the collapse is

clear. on the last is the name for the moment but after one or two years it is very quickly. it went from thousands. there is no role that you can take to move from one place to another. the response from the international committee and the international committee found a solution and put the regime in

front of the responsibility between the insurgents on the international support. the game in this area is going through the gulf countries, turkey and iran and they are less and less allies and they start to create. that's also a huge problem that we show in the middle east that we are not about to even say we are allies when we have people fighting against isis and we have a credible institution in the territories to deal with.

we are unable to do anything on the field or the legitimacy especially if the u.s. administration. >> thank you. now they have the conflicts that they tried to avoid getting stuck in. one thing to remember a year and a half ago when they were doing an op-ed in "the new york times" with a brilliant title he has proven cynicism is not the proven intelligence here and in a sense when we see today the u.s. army to come back in iraq and seriously see that the main problems that have been plaguing

the action of the united states in the past show consideration, internal consideration are here. you have a campaign with the well to have no troops on the ground and looking for allies when none exist though we do not speak about it anymore. it's become very important. a lot of places in afghanistan they hold because there is an american campaign going on. there've been many signals of pressure on the united states to combat. think of the simple fact that the report of the afghan army has been classified. so coming back to the conflicts which obama administration has

been saying it would avoid and what withdrawal from. the rhythm is not related really to what happens in the region and you can see it in the way that it played a huge role to be much more than structure. think of the role by the islamic state which is a tragic moment but not a strategic issue and how should determine them play bigger issue than the factors in the middle east despite the fact that the middle east is going through one of the biggest crisis since the end of the ottoman empire and the way that we've tended to be very selective with minorities. let me take two examples. there is a rationale and the

organization was suspected of planning terrorist attacks in europe but by doing so, america has alienated one of its central allies in cvs which is needed at the moment confronting the islamic states and an ally that was a strong military that needed to avoid more than anything else the fact that they would start fighting it in the fear that the u.s. would start building up against the islamic state and the situation is simple today it's one of the main provinces into the taking of her big parts of the territory and they are fighting already the regime at the same time. the choice to intervene perfectly understandable and important thing to do that why do we decide that it's so

important and the sunni iraqis are not? we are being very selective. it's also very telling when you decide to bomb without any strategy of stabilizing the region you have a population in its it's also the islamic state territories when the air force bomb disposal and is targeting within the city military targets but also affect the population and critical infrastructures again affecting the profession, you can't explain or make people understand in those two

countries that theres i a campaign that would at some point gives them freedom from the islamic state because when you have a campaign that is just clearly saying that this is only made with no plan beyond, to go beyond we are pretty sure they are having not only to live but to have their electricity stop and this strategy is opening up the nonstate actors of the various types into their is a big risk in those three countries. in afghanistan are the core elements of the strategy has been over the country and the various networks which increase the fragmentation and you have more and more local which are taking positions in the countryside it is actually one of the factors which did not

disclose the shifting order that we need to support in iraq and syria into the united states is doing what it expected never to do which is a group that ends up being able to support iraq was a risk of one of those movements asking for more and more autonomy and having big tensions with turkey. so, what is the implication of such a strategy? the implication of several, you have the dynamic organization of the iraq eastgate which is even more important, despite the attempt to train for example the sunni iraq he units in the province which the iraq eastgate does not want to really use. given that having a state which

is more and more closing itself on one and we have no alternative and the institution that we are working really well because it would do it without money. they've been largely undermined by the situation and we are a victory over the state and anytime they want to any time they want to territory it tends to slow the populations. but now we see it in iraq every time they lose the territory of the iraqis get slow. we have the defeat of the state have dire consequences and that means there is a problem. in afghanistan, the strategy in

the deal where the attention went out from the spirit inside of the state institution well effectively manage to slow down the advance but the risk today afghanistan is one of the very few that have a shia minority. they have the population that is coherent with what happened in which you always had the deal is more or less so you don't have a conflict like in pakistan. it could play that race. to conclude what we are trying

to explain and what we have been trying to do with being at the effect of the american policy on the ground is that it went from high investment to coming back and we argue that the evidence that seems to be not that evident in the structure factors are important in the way that america should build its foreign-policy. they have the internal logic and the withdrawal has been on the agenda following the u.s. internal logic and coming back on the u.s. domestic agenda. with afghanistan, iraq and syria there is the will today to forget the lessons of the war and the decision not to engage in supporting the insurgency. i think those lessons have very important and if you think of the situation we have today if

you'll allow me just to conclude on that a couple things we think could be interesting to think of, one is that in afghanistan if there was a well to advance the agenda, it would only make sense if it has a negotiation agenda. there is the narrative of them being fragmented into several movements but it doesn't hold anymore. you have them by the thousands and if there is able to find a settlement we have to go through the negotiated settlement in that movement. in iraq and syria there is the necessity to be ready for the state and if that would happen and if they would end up dot having the resources because it

might disappear quickly at least in such a case there is a need to have a scenario for what would have been in the area in iraq into syria and here it's very different. there is the need to engage with the elite and be prepared as much as the iraqi army and the shia militia and in syria the risk of the islamic state east of the country if at some point it has been made in transforming to the regional war if we want that issue we need to engage again with the revolutionary leaders and the people but to build the institutions to give the possibility to rebuild alternative institutions. thank you.

>> before we turned to the audience (-left-paren and react to this intervention and give the sense of what was said. >> scheuer, thank you again for inviting me. and it is a delight to host our colleagues from across the atlantic. i'm sensing a lot of common thread to throughout these presentations and what i reflect on struck by the title of a well-known book on america's foreign-policy in the middle east by lawrence friedman called a choice of enemies and what i'm struck by is the fact that u.s. policy in all of these cases is a series of trade-offs. we are dealing with compromised allies and in perfect partners. we are searching for new allies and in many cases they are drawing us into very localized power struggles we do not fully understand and here i want to reference a misreading of the

oooooo things in terms of a patchwork of tribes and we get drawn into the localized power struggles. i do want to maybe caviar for some of these presentations with an appreciation for the limits of u.s. policy. that u.s. was not responsible for iraq or the rise of militia politics were tribes for instance i think you can't really pinpoint a lot of that to the policies of the regime and the latter years of his regime he began hauling out the military devolving power to militia and the same thing in the country i work on libya and a lot talk up a nato intervention and what it did with many of those aftereffects of that were done the genesis was really under gadhafi so we are confronted with a number of states in the region. iraq is the rea, in jenin, libya

we have the hauling out of the security structures. we don't have the sufficient partners. we don't know how to operate in those environments, so it's natural that we try to deal with non- detectors, tribes, ethnic militias. the question is what are the future contours of the states going to look like? i think it can be described as a hybrid security environment where you have the very hollow, corrupt notional state institutions working alongside the paramilitary tribes, sectarian militia and this is going to be the future. how does the u.s. as a state power that is used to dealing with ministries of of defense, of interior, how does it insert itself into those very fractured states? i agree with much of what was said about the absolute corruption of many of our allies and the fact we are working through the regime's that are

fueling the extremism that today purports to be fighting. and this is a problem that isn't going to go away. we often hear in the talk of the region allies in the counterterrorism cooperation. that's what the regionals handle it. they are just as capable of messing things up in fact in many cases they are more partisan. i certainly see this in a place like to be a. so again been in the absence of sort of the underground u.s. presence as we've heard they are stepping in. i didn't hear very much in the presentation about the enablers meaning the funding from the gulf and from tunisia why is this state providing so many of the soldiers for the movement in serious and iraq and then we have to dial back the policy barriers even further to look at the role of prison.

i think much of this is about the judiciary systems in the world the incarceration of jihad we know that in iraq we can go back to zarqawi with the prison system. when the u.s. engages with its allies how much oversight and how much leverage does it have over these integrators of the radicalization? so i think we are in a difficult bind on a number of countries. i agree with what was said about the airpower. the question though is what would be a better strategy. when i hear that u.s. officials justified the national guard program in iraq, and you're absolutely right to warn about the dangers of the program increasing fragmentation, what is the opportunity framing it in terms of a provincial force and

aware of the fact that this force needs to be tethered to the central government, and i would argue that it's not something the iraqi government doesn't want. this is a proposal that he put forward. he's trying to work out the command and control issues. so again in terms of the theme of this panel, you know, the policy failure or the inevitable rise like go back to say january of 2014 and we start hearing the first intelligence briefings about the rise of isis and its move. if you were advising president obama what would you tell him to do at that point differently? at that point could we have stopped it and then i want to press you just a little bit more and perhaps yield you said and i quote the lack of support paved the way for the radical actors and again it goes back to this notion of allies if only we had

backed the right allies we know from history that our allies are often imperfect and they tend to use the aid in certain ways and perhaps it in parts too much legitimacy to the fsa and the qualitative combat capabilities. if you could just explain that a bit more in terms of the timeframe from what i understand in terms of the amount of training that would be required to really make this entity into a fighting force and i would welcome your thoughts on that. >> i expect some debate and then we will turn to the audience leader on. >> maybe i will focus on cbs right now. after the first trip in

december, january we wrote the report and we were trained to do this and advise the people in washington which is i prefer fieldwork and what was the argument? the argument is that we were actually seeing interior is a strong movement meaning that the municipalities were working and it was much better to live and it was very optimistic at the same time we wrote clearly that if he was coming from jerusalem and we were very clear that the

way to manage these two dangers was to support the the army and at the same time we were clear that it was not very efficient in developing the negotiations and that's why there was a key point that it was all about the strategy. it's a very clear strategy of producing refugees into and then to be able to marginalize. at the same time let's remember most of them were led by the people coming from jail and people were liberated at the end of 2011 but the key thing actually is the point was to say

okay we have to have enough to give enough antiaircraft weapon to the insurgents and that was a key decision because now you have more than 1 million refugees and the support could have stayed. that means it was possible to build and it would have been extremely difficult for the groups that support inside of the negotiation. it would have been much more difficult for them to do something. and the dynamic would have been totally different. and again, the same question was asked in september actually, 2013 of the perfusion the perfusion from the u.s. administration that was very

clear we are not supporting the insurgents. and again, i remember the beginning of 2011 that was a huge clash that united against the islamic state and the islamic state lost its position in serious and at that time. we don't have the acceptance west of cedar rhea. it came in the summer of 2014. so the movements where the united states decided okay they are not very good fighters, they

are bright but not very well organized. but at the same time we can stabilize 1 million of 2 million people in the north. if we protect them against the charlotte saw -- bishara al-assad. there is the question is it's much more complicated because actually we lost all most all of the leverage after the withdrawal so here we are in a situation afghanistan is the same. in the 2004 you are going to pay for the mistake. sadly i think that there is no sense of -- good solution. >> briefly maybe we have to come back to 2003 about the d.

gratification of iraq. i think that was the u.s. leading this movement when you said the u.s. doesn't have to deal with that. then it's true the institution was built in iraq with a lot of negotiations in different groups and that's why the u.s. doesn't have all of the rapport to do anything. but when you talk about in 2007 when they created the tribal leaders in the groups fighting inside that was working. that was people doing a good job in 2011. but then the withdrawal of americans made the system very weak. i have a lot of people i

interview that no they join isis and explained to me why and how because in january 2013 when they fell into isis in iraq they started to remove the militia from syria. there are a lot of militia funding the fight against the sunni insurgents. maliki tried to in 2014 stop if the sunni iraq was moving at this time because the time in the months where i says was launching a huge attack and it

was expelled from all the territory in serious. so at this critical time, we could call out and try to stop to push on a maliki. >> let's now turn to the audience. please as usual and traduce yourself and also indicate to who you are directing your question. >> i am with the pakistan delete. thank you for the opportunity.

my observation is on the preview that we want to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction and then we want to bring democracy to the country. and it took them so many years. as of again come in the state of policy with the intention they become questionable to the people so there was a perception change and look what happened. as a nation is still paying the price and on the other hand they asked to hand over osama bin laden but she didn't believe it. he said they are coming anyway.

i'm telling you the story in pakistan. so, my question is do you think they needed to review after so many failures their policy toward the middle east in particular where the muslim role in general and if they do need to review their policy in the middle east and towards the muslim world what but with his panelists give them? >> thanks for putting me on the spot. a >> i apologize to my colleague. >> the answer to the question whether the movement policy

failure we would have to consider what our policymakers considered a success in those three countries and i think it is obvious that success would have been to establish compliant regimes comes up a sort of regimes we have in jordan now saudi arabia but that is sort of a dream considering the modern history of these countries are on the intrusion of imperialists so what's second best, could it be failed states? what we are seeing in the middle east today consider serious was the one that was left defining the aspiration to the area and severely weakened today. i don't think we care that becomes a failed state. but after they invaded russia

and the soviet union rather before we got an incoming harry truman who was the senator at suggested that we should support the germans when they were winning and the soviets and when the germans were winning running so they would kill each other as possible. right now the muslims are doing a good job of killing other muslims which may distract them from bothering us. am i right? >> that is a shorter version of the longer answer. >> do we take it three at a time >> i'm taking the one above should we speak [inaudible] i think your question just the way you asked your question means that you know it's not

good and if there's one thing here cvs is a very good example for us to think it's a local crisis and then you let the thing become more and more complicated and then you understand that when you have 5 million refugees who is paying for the refugees? so the idea that you can have a local crisis that stays local is going against everything that we know the last 30, 40 years at least. there is no civil war that is strictly local. 90% of the regional dimensions when it is regional dimensions one you have to pay for the

refugees in terms of security. so the idea is maybe not too late in the last minute to intervene and probably provides to send planes and troops on the ground but maybe to do something different. and the question about the review which is too ambitious of an agenda to speak about but my point is to stop thinking that you can ignore the crisis and what we are doing in afghanistan right now. i think i wrote in the paper in 2009 is saying focus on the cities and exits. the idea five years ago was that it was going to fail so at some point we would be obliged to withdraw but the idea was that

if we go to quickly because it would destabilize all of afghanistan and instead, it wasn't very -- it was a reasonable strategy but it was a reasonable strategy, and instead of doing that, what we do is search and eventually withdraw and if there is one advice it would be stop playing this game and try to deal with the crisis when there are small local crisis and think for example in this area -- security. >> on the u.s. policy question, the u.s. has inherited the power

since the 70s of the british withdraw. we are tied to the network of the authoritarian regime's. at the history of the involvement has been a succession of confronting broad threats in the soviet union, iraq and now it is transnational terrorism and i think the strategies of the confrontation and content meant have blinded us to things that are creating additional threats down the road, so i am arguing that there is a policy with a colleague now in the rush to solicit support against isis we are ignoring the service inside the states that could lead to greater extremism so you talk about a preemptive strategy i would argue for greater scrutiny of what's happening inside of the states we call our allies. i'm not talking about a return to the very vocal

democratization agenda that defined the bush era but perhaps a greater focus on the rule of law reforms as an insurance policy down the road looking at the systems in the countries that it's not all without an external containment strategy. i am very worried about the fact we have these allies in the goals that have signed up for this campaign and you have for instance the state like bahrain that we have a major strategic presence and the sunnis are going to join isis and there is a radicalization threat so this is an age old problem and it just strikes me as i mentioned in the title of the book from lawrence freedman the choice of enemies we've always been compounded where do we deal with the near-term threat, how well do we manage long-term threats looming on the horizon and in the era of absolute exhaustion i think we can't underestimate this in the u.s. and domestic

sphere financial, moral, psychological it's going to be very hard to see the coherence constructive policy emerge. >> i think you mentioned the key fact. let's go back to the audience not all at the same time please. >> just as the matthews from carnegie. >> we could sit here until tomorrow at this time and discuss all the mistakes that were made in the war. but setting aside the initial position to go into iraq and setting aside the catastrophe

over the red line in this area over the chemical weapons red line, one can ask the question whether the logical end result of the argument that you're making simply arrived at the bottom line that the u.s. should never have gotten near because it seems to me you started by talking about the failure to find the allies. and then a few minutes later about policies that actively destroyed the states we were trying to create and those policies were generally policies to create allies among various tribal entities and leaders. at the same time, the

president's initial conviction of serious was an attempt to learn the lesson of iraq that you don't go in unless you can see at least the outline of a political solution and neither kofi annan nor us, nobody could find such an outline. on the other hand, the world has hated the u.s. attempt to wait for such an outline. it's called withdrawal. the u.s. feels naked without the u.s. providing the security that it has provided since the end of world war ii that allows everybody else to live and grow in relative peace. so, i am sympathetic to the

arguments being made, but i must say i cannot see a logical conclusion to them other than that we should never have gotten him into that doesn't seem like a good -- or it seems like a very highly risky strategy or recommendation in and of itself. so i wonder whether you can really take on the wood seems to be the significant contradictions in your criticism of u.s. policy. >> i should oblige to my former boss. well actually, it all depends on how you define the term crisis.

my point that the u.s. should never, never send troops to iran and serious should be absolutely clear. this is really what we think. never trust. at the same time we should remember in 1991 it was a way to stabilize the area. i don't think i'm wrong about this some instead of comparing syria and iraq in 2003, the good comparison is to compare wilderness area the wilderness area and northern iraq and there was a huge stabilization of the situation. hundreds of thousands of kurdish refugees came back from turkey. let's imagine now that the u.s. did not intervene in 1991. what happened to the camp in

turkey? i've been in the camps in northern iraq. trust me it could have been a bad so it shows at the right moment in the scope of the crisis it was asked wasn't to send troops, it was because it was going against the strategy in a very efficient way. this is crucial. there is no clearance of what i'm going to say about the trade-off between the short-term and long-term, the drones in afghanistan in both cases they

were useful from time to time but basically you can say that it is useful that the same time it has a destabilizing effect on the local societies. they are working in the kunar and what i think is you have a trend in the u.s. policy to make the being of the end of everything. so they used rounds until the end of time.

the idea now is what we can do is short-term to change the game so i do not see a solution. i'm sure that they would agree with me. >> if i may interfere with that debate let me just say one thing. this is not about an initial decision it was one way of conducting the war and of course it's on the cover doctrine existed which you are referring to with clear objectives and exit strategies which i think made a lot of sense.

of course it is to be smarter afterwards. there are things we could have done differently. the things we have for example in afghanistan in the political process has been at the very beginning of it framed in a way so as to facilitate the military intervention. while then you introduce a problem within the local dynamic that will make you later on and which we say now is also paying that as well and you can say now that it's been done what should we do. well again we cannot ignore that and there are lessons from it. and i'm not sure they have all

been done. anyway, you wanted to say something. >> i'm wondering if we are not being too focused on our own experience. let me refer to two experiences in the foreign countries. one that ended badly, one that was successful. the one that ended badly in israel and lebanon. they went in and stayed for years, they tried to create a proxy army and they failed. that lee. how long did the army last. the success, vietnam and cambodia, they went in and they cleaned out. they were destroyed. the vietnamese went back across the border. they have not come back. cambodia is not a failed state. so, what did the cambodians do, what did the vietnamese do right, what do the israelis do

wrong maybe we should look beyond our own experience and gain some lessons from what others have done. >> yes sir. we will come back to the panel later. >> i have a fundamental question of what is wrong in the era air of the world to govern itself. they have an effective government however if you can deal with. my sense is that [inaudible] it is the right thing to do. >> any other questions at this stage? yes, over there. >> [inaudible] >> madalyn, lebanon the last three years working on the site for serious. a comment on frederick's comment

about the u.s. coming out on january, 2014, about isis coming out. i was on the ground of the last three years and it was clear what was happening the last three years. we knew what was happening. we were screaming at the top of our lungs to all of our contacts, all of us. so my contact is that there are people on the ground, there are plenty of potential allies on the ground. i just think the u.s. has been selected so my question is this a lack of will or lack of confidence in the american government and its affiliates to communicate with the ground and use all of its resources to make small changes have have [laughter]

>> perhaps we could save the date. there is something interesting in what went wrong in lebanon for israel and what went right in cambodia. can you elaborate a bit on your own question because you asked the question. you don't? to be honest i try to look at what the vietnamese did in cambodia. there's very little literature especially in english. i don't speak vietnamese. i would love to see a study on it because of all the interventions, that one seems the most successful. they totally crushed them. they went back across the border. cambodia has survived. i would love to know how they did it.

>> absolutely nothing to say on cambodia, but what i think is the way that they framed the situation in syria is exactly the thing you should not do because it seems obvious you take series and iraq because the structure is different. so we should start reacting to the idea that all interventions are going to fail and it is not a good idea. i would most of the times they located not send troops on the ground. but that kind of intervention can work. you have to analyze the situation quickly. the problem in washington is that when you say i want to intervene or i don't want to intervene it is political.

are you liberal, whatever. and the problem is nobody is looking at what it is going to bring on the ground. and at least i would argue that just looking at the problem, not the political undertone of the solution is the key to answer things into the idea was perfectly right that everybody interested in syria it was clearly written. that strategy was everywhere. it was very easy to understand. it wasn't that complicated. sorry, i shouldn't say that. you don't need necessarily the opinions to understand the crisis. it's quite simple actually.

.. the intervention can word and in

the context of which you're going to say they are. at least one difference that you have in cambodia and lebanon, irradiated when vietnam intervened. they were not liked when intervened in lebanon. you know, if we look at the islamic state, we had she hadith hadith -- jihadi movement. the islamic state with any integration of international order, there are a few citizenships were done at american citizens are for citizen is someone acceptable. the taliban you should engage

them. the only country that tried to uphold the border to take a very precise example in 2009. you've got a movement whose dream is to integrate international order. you should not look at them in the same way. >> thank you. >> laura hershey. i was a fulbright scholar in 1968 in india and we continued to read the india story. it is hard to formulate a good question for a panel like this because you are brilliant and that is a compliment. i want to ask you to give me a scenario for the retaking of the large city of the school in northern iraq and that's one of the colleagues here in the room was using foreign experience is,

vietnam, lebanon, cambodia, israel, et cetera. we had a civil war that lasted 40 years. this is civil war tori terry. mosul is an iraqi territory in the hands of another self-declared state authority. so if each of the four of you, or five if you will, mr. moderator, give us a scenario. how long will it take before mosul is maybe like the city of atlanta, georgia, part of the union again? >> somebody wants to answer that? please. [laughter] >> look, the problem is, as they see your dark -- "new york times" article is dealing with the military and iraq holiday

hollowed out by corruption. the kurdish melissa is, shia militias. it has to come from the sunnis themselves. ii think the u.s. strategy is empowering, you know, a provincial, you know, move and come a provincial armed wing under this national guard. there's probably going to be some sort of absurd to split third of the pragmatists within isi s. ranks. the sunnis allies, bathysphere the question is not so much alliteration, but what comes next in terms of the structures and replace it in our you're going to have enough confidence being conveyed to the sunnis that they are part of the national project, that they have representation. this is the real long-term struggle. you could argue we have done this before we have air power. we have indigenous forces. probably as the ground of

factors to court made airstrikes. we have tribal paramilitaries that coming. what comes than max? i was in iraq in 2008 in baghdad working on the search and as we heard, a key why was declared dead. but we know that these movements can reemerge like a cancer coming back. so the question is what kind of government owing to replace isis in mosul? >> i was not far from mosul -- [inaudible] a lot of people from around the city. what you are to do with mosul, you are right. the problem is the way dealing with the iraqi army. it is not the solution.

you have to deal with the sunni arabs and the elite political, but also with the tehran groups. when you buy mosul, when you try to kill in this way of mass bombing, you know, you kill a lot of civilians. there is not the ability with which you can negotiate some agreement. then it is impossible to dream to stabilize the situation. then the second friends is wished for us we are filled. kurdish are not -- there is dividing among them. you need to train them for two, three years and probably the pd k. or u. piquet will try to make a competition between them to know which one can increase in

iraq and they have to go back to mosul. the iraqi army is the wrong shia militia. we try to manipulate insecure about god. the battle is not -- it will continue. the cure of beijing, center river rat showed that it is really very difficult where the iraqi army to progress in a santa may have to go through their own militia with a very bad sign for the arab sunni. on the very last friend, i was in iraq two weeks ago and i spoke with a lot of people still living in mosul. there is more fear that the iraqi will come back to the city

then the isis stay. they know if the comes back it will be a lot of mass killing. for the moment, i am not really for that of course. so right now, at a time when they see the solution, we have to negotiate. >> thank you. all right. we have time for one last question and then i would give two minutes to each of the panelists to conclude. >> thank you. i have a really simple question. the u.s. is retaining combat troops in afghanistan and also increasing train forces in iraq. does this signify some changes in terms of national security? thank you. >> well, i don't know who else could answer that.

[inaudible] >> is there a change in national security? i mean, the decision to maintain troops in iraq and afghanistan signify a change in the u.s. strategy in those countries? >> well, i can speak for iraq. i think those troops are purely an advisory role. i don't see that as a major shift from prohibition on actual combat from line troops. but you have heard general dempsey say at some point it may become necessary. i think they want to leave that option open. i don't believe at least in iraq if there is a significant shift from what obama articulated in his earlier speech. >> in afghanistan you cannot speak at the moment of the change. where would we see in the future, maybe in the next few months is that probably the u.s. is going to be afraid.

the deterioration of the security in afghanistan and then they could be referred to give more support and probably to leave more troops in afghanistan. because if we don't do it in two or three years, the taliban will take a chill of afghanistan. so probably at some point somebody's going to say maybe we should do some thing. but at this point it is very unclear. >> black name as each of our panelists to come through for no more than two minutes. >> yes, well, in a sense we have been saying the discussion, what we are trying to argue here is that, you know, and how the u.s.

in the middle east has a general interest to have a stable region and in that sense, one of the u.s. policies here has not had ms institution. a war is happening not just in kabul, but on the rural afghanistan. not looking enough that have the iraqi state was institutionalizing itself in the last year. how the free theory and army was building their own institution and home ports and eight days in the interest of the united states to have actually states in this regime. and the moment where you have orders in such turmoil. the moment where the border might be contested, thinking of having not state building

policies, but a movement that has already been a state oriented strategy is actually something to consider. >> actually, i don't have a great conclusion. maybe, i would say that we have three crises where we now need three different policies than the police recommendation would be first to sustain the haqqani government to the point where it is possible to deal with the taliban. i don't think that we can let it go in afghanistan and the taliban -- afghanistan is not a big problem. i don't acrid utah. we should try to -- [inaudible]

long enough for him to be able to negotiate with the taliban as possible. the second recommendation would he is the area. so we should absolutely do something because they are going to reconcile. if these movements are taking syria, we will have a huge, major security problem and it almost gone. my third recommendation would be that probably, we should find -- try to find a way to open washington to what is happening on the ground and to change would be the turn of the debate but they have seen a few years ago is sometimes difficult in the different meetings in washington. i think probably it is possible to make it a little better and be sure people are speaking about outside world and not at

all washington world. >> well, only two points. the only way to stop -- especially because said that u.s. bombing, we are under the critical situations. maybe falling in the next month if we are not because of their ashamed of the charla seib, but because the isis. as they say, it continues to progress and cleaning the territory on the institutions, and still walk you to matter. the second point i want to warn

about the crisis, especially in iraq. the decision is a big threat in afghanistan. it is also the way bashar al-assad is not any more, so we tried to send some different missions, has the lord -- the problem is maliki, was doing the same in the new iraqi development is playing with these tools in the position. we have to care officially to focus which people are training on the ground and to which people we are sending to iraq. thank you. >> thank you. fred, you have the last one.

>> yeah, i think this is ending up with a plea of what the u.s. can accomplish. having served in her back and re-emphasizing that just because we have awareness doesn't necessarily mean they are equipped with policy tools to affect the very complex situation geared certainly there are mistakes made. i just like to point out one and being a bout gilles' no-fly zone. i can't enter the place iraq, libya, the balkans where we didn't end up going into regime change after that i just don't think u.s. policy given the unstable is prepared to do that if we set up a no-fly zone. >> well, thank you very much for those very sobering last words. it is time now to bring the session to close. thank you all for being with us this afternoon. thank you for panelists. i think you would join me to give them a big hand.

[applause] and to all of you, a very happy thanksgiving. [inaudible conversations] >> a live picture from inside the white house this afternoon or president obama is about to follow in the annual tradition of pardoning the national thanksgiving turkey. it was supposed to happen in the white house rose garden, but due to implement whether through washington, it has been moved indoors. this year's national thanksgiving turkey were raised there ohio. their names are mac and cheese. after the pardoning, they will about their days at a farm in northern virginia. the white house has been running a contest online to let the public decide which of the tubers will be the national thanksgiving turkey. that ceremony is set to begin any moment. we will be carrying that live on

our companion netware, c-span. retired general stanley mcchrystal to her at an american university school of public affairs annual conference on civic engagement. the lot with the big business and education leaders addressed range of topics related to modern citizenship, activism and corporate social responsibility. you can see that event tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> i've been a member of congress for 34 years. to finally get the, if i was a manager for a baseball or football team and i had 34 and one, i would eat in the hall of fame. so it doesn't bother me. and it really didn't bother me to get beat because i wasn't set on going. i had 18 cochairmen who were

cochairman of the 18 families in my district supporting me and wanting me to run and i did. it is hard to get elected if he were at 90 or 91 years old and they also tell people that you ran two miles every morning, that you vote 99 plus percentage of the time. there's time. this is different than 90 wrote people that never was brought up by the dallas news because they were for me. >> all 90 euros are not built the same in other words. a lot of people who are rendering how you run two miles a day. what is your secret? >> well coming in now, i used to be in the cattle business. it's one of your heifers have a little bull calf, go out there and took the bull calf over the cents to the tune every over the fence. day after day after day until he is a full-grown bull and then when you can still lift him over the fence and throw them over

the fence come you can throw the ball enough to run for congress is what they told me. so that is how i got in the race for congress. >> representative hall, curling the oldest serving member of the u.s. house. see the entire conversation tonight i c-span continues his series of interviews with retired members of congress gets underway at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> new york senator charles schumer is calling on democrats to embrace government. he spoke tuesday at the national press club here in washington.

he outlined what went wrong for his part in the midterm elections and laid out plans for a new pact with the middle with the middle-class. schumer says of the democratic policy chair. his comments are about an hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hi, everybody. i am about metering, moderator of the event for the newsmakers committee. it is a high honor for us to have senator democratic policy chair, chuck schumer, charles schumer, a key member of the leadership, who will give the first of a series of three speeches. he is taking it off today to diagnose what was wrong for democrats in the 2014 election

and what they must do to be successful in 2016 and beyond. in the current congress, senator schumer is a member of the senate judiciary committee and the subcommittee on immigration. order security of that is in schiphol oversee president obama's executive order and immigration. he also chairs the senate rules committee and the number of the senate finance committee and the baking, urban affairs committee. he will keep his leadership brought the senate democratic policy chair the current congress. his committees will be cared for and as we get closer. as member where we met from 1980 to 98, he offered the omnibus crime bill was the leading sponsor in the brady bill. he cowrote the assault weapons ban is sponsored by a preservation act. he also sponsored legislation that requires banks and credit card companies to provide greater disclosure. in the new york city following

the 2011 attacks. he was the author of legislation that eliminated bearers that eliminated berthelot? medications led efforts to make college tuition tax-deductible. in 2004, after his reelection, he successfully read the democratic senate campaign committee in majorities in two cycles in following the elections of 2006, majority leader reid appointed him to buy share the democratic conference, number three position in a position he continues to hold. in 2009, he was elected chairman of the senate rules committee, which oversees federal elections, voting rights and campaign finance. after he was reelected for a third term, he took unaccented role as chairman of the democratic policy and communication center. but my favorite part of the senator's biography is that after graduating from harvard college and harvard law school, by the way i only got on the waiting list and i'm very disappointed.

senator schumer -- senator schumer in 1974 rent for the new york state assembly become at 23 the youngest member of the state legislatures since theodore roosevelt. so welcome to the national press club, where new toppings. i want to thank the national press club staffer helping organize the event today. don't mccarron, joanne booze and richard for among others at the press club and our interns, autumn kelley if you raise your hand and i've been gone now and rebecca vanderlinden, my longtime executive assistant who will be the van be the vandal fight of our events and carry the microphone, which you have. the audience may for questions. it makes a much better sound that way. so, also on senator schumer staff, madhouse, justin goodman, many of the people that were very, very helpful in making this event happen today. we assume that senator schumer

in today's speech will address the many controversial issues out there. the immigration order, the health care bill and whether those will be allowed to stay or whether they will be killed or weakened by funding cuts. ferguson and the decision they are in police and grace and chuck hagel at the department of defense, his new position. those are obviously the new items that are out. we look forward very much to senator schumer's speech and he will speak for about 25 minutes and then we'll open it to questions. senator schumer. >> thank you, bob. great to be back at the press club. first let me wish everybody a happy thanksgiving. i hope you all with friends and family and have a good one and i will start off by telling my thanksgiving story. i was born on a scathing day in 1950, november 23rd, 1950. my mom went into labor at about 5:00 a.m.

in those days of course things were a lot different. if that's true of the monsoon to the hospital and the moms were just west upstairs and they put the dads in the waiting room where they paced the floor, smoked cigars and waited to hear about the blessed event. well, my mom's obstetrician was based at french hospital, a hospital on 29th street and seventh avenue in manhattan. it was run by a french order of nuns. it has been subsequently closed. in any case, he got to 8:00, 8:30 today. my dad went to the waiting room. we realized it's thanksgiving. it's the thanksgiving day parade. he watched it for three hours. at the end of a piece i friend of his and they decided to go at a local pub to celebrate the upcoming blessed event.

i was born at 11:00 a.m. he showed up at 3:30. precipitated the first night my parents had over me. now fortunately, it didn't end you. they have been married, praise god, for 65 years. she's 91, he is 86, that things have been has always been a special event in our family. so thank you for being here. the democratic middle class majority in 2016 and how to make it happen. as all of you know there's a statue. it's a beautiful lady holding the torch. the torch represents the american dream. if you ask the average american about the american dream means to him, he wouldn't put it in fancy textbook which are academic terms. he or she would put it very simply. they would say it means if i work hard, i will be doing better 10 years from now than i

am doing today and my kids will be doing still better than me. however, if that torch flickers, if the torch is no longer that, if people no longer believe in the american dream, we become a different country and that is exactly what is happening. the light is flickering, has been flickering for over the last decade and that fact has dominated our politics more than any other. the economy for the first time in american history, middle-class incomes have been in decline for over decade in the grand optimism of america and the american dream is itself in jeopardy. the 2014 election results can be explained this way. during 2013, neither party convinced the middle class that they had an effective way to get them out of this morass.

that they had an effective plan to create good jobs and raise incomes. as 2014 began, the parties were in stalemate. but when government fails to do it or on a string of noneconomic issues, the rollout of the obamacare exchanges, the mishandling of the surge in border crossers, ineptitude of the va, the initial handling of the ebola threat, people lost faith in government abilities to work and then blame the incumbent a burning party, democrats creating a republican ways. ultimately, the public knows in its god that a strong and active government is the only way to reverse the middle-class decline and help revive the american dream. democrats lost in 2014 because the government made mistakes that eroded the electorates confidence in its ability to improve the lives of the

middle-class. but that's a underlying expectation that government should help make life easier for the middle-class is as strong as it has ever been. setting the stage for the democratic victory in 2016, if and only if we can convince people that government can work in harper's store middle-class to prosperity. we are in a much better position to do this than republicans because when economic conditions are declining for the middle-class, the electorate is instinctively turns to democrats. in order to win in 2016, democrats must embrace government not run away from it. the mantra of the less government works is counterintuitive to the middle-class. government is needed to stand up to the economic forces like technology and globalization the push them around. if democrats can create a

convincing plan that is both achievable and believable, embracing government is a way to help the middle-class in dance. we will roll to victory in 2016. in order to demonstrate that government can work, democrats must proceed down two parallel tracks. first, we must convey to americans that government can't be on their side and it's not just a tool of special interests. we must reenergized our vision by making a forceful case when democrats will govern again that will make ever meant the people's champion, not not captive to the powerful. now this message has an element to populism. democratic populism does not be the rabble rousing populism or divisiveness if you rely for william jennings bryan. democratic populism recognizes that the powerful have much more access than in wins over government in specific and strong actions must be taken to curb the influence so government

can really represent the average person. second, and even more important, we must illustrate that government can provide solutions by delineating specific concrete programs that if enacted would actually improve lives and incomes. these proposals must resonate with the middle-class so that voters believe they will be attainable and effective, which means they must work allegedly. they must also be joined by an effective theme so people don't see programs as disjointed pieces, but rather parts of a whole. we must convince the middle-class that the only way out of their morass is by embracing a strong and effective government, not demanding or running from it. so here should be our past with the middle-class. by using government in a direct and focused way, we will provide

a shield to large force is that it works again the middle-class families so they have a better job in more money in their pockets. we will have an active ever meant that gives them the tools they need to make their lives better. we will restore a strong and stable iraq atomic donation for middle-class and working families so they can stop worrying about getting by and start thinking of getting ahead. our message must be we will help get you moving forward again so that you will be better off 10 years from now and your kids lives will be better than yours. now this is more than just a political necessity. we have a strong policy imperative to do this as well. while many may not know it, the nation is on the edge of a crisis. if we have another 10 years of middle-class decline, we will have a fundamentally different

country, a sour, angry country where people of different backgrounds, races and economic levels no longer get along with a government that few of us, left or right will like. but the political opening certainly provides us an opportunity. four election cycles of ping-pong results have shown a that people are yearning for a political party to offer positive and concrete solutions only to be a disappointed each time. democrats need to fill that void and even in a world of negativity, it passivated by a cynical and media, we can succeed. sometimes people forget that the struggle between pro-government and antigovernment forces is not a recent phenomenon. it has dominated our politics for the last 90 years. it has dominated our political

economy. during that time, the fundamental divide between democrats and republicans have been their attitude towards government. democrats believe in them that even forceful government can and must be a positive force in people's lives. republicans believe government is usually a detrimental force. the less the better. one simple fact -- the site a few weeks ago. illustrates how stark this division is today. the most conservative senate democrat come a probably joe mentioned, still believes more in government and the most liberal senate republican, susan collins. the belief in government, its size, its role, its possibilities is really what undergirds our politics and fundamentally divides our parties. over the course of the 20th century are political pendulum has swung from periods of relative faith in government to periods of distressed.

the seller the big tectonic plates. they move very slowly over time, but they have drastic and lasting consequences when they do. and they are moving back in a pro-government direction. so let's review the history since 1932. a pro-government mentality dominated politics from 1982 to 1980. before 1932, fear and uncertainty reigned. frank was about contending with the forces unleashed and confronted by an economic calamity of the highest order leaned on the lovers of ever meant to stop the bleeding and pull the country out of the depression. fdr greatly expanded the role of government. he stimulated the economy, built a social safety net, hinged on social security that lifted older americans out of crippling poverty.

these actions bound together in a new deal demonstrated to the american people that government could indeed improve the standard of living for average americans. dave bodman and democrats enjoyed two generations as the majority party. during that period, even republicans played on a pro-government field. and proffered agendas that expanded government. eisenhower built a highway system. richard nixon created a new federal agency, the epa. but i 1980, two things have been. first, any party in power for a power for a long time as his long time as his touch and goes off track. on issues such as crime and welfare, democrats veered too far away from the american people, indicating government might not be working for them anymore. but the most fundamental reason people turned away from

government with democrats have been so successful in creating a stable economic system. people thought i am fine on my own. i don't need government anymore. america had experienced 35 years of continued prosperity and a persuasive, craig and supported by a republican party with unique and new messaging tools took that opportunity to convince them that they know what grenada government. it's a bit counterintuitive, yes, but it helped undermine the very idea that gave birth to it. if the democratic party got ahead of the middle-class on issues like taxes and crime, roof frames like taxes of welfare queens come you don't need help from the government found a receptive audience. americans started to believe that the federal government had become, sporadic, in effect days. so ronald reagan was able to create and antigovernment that lasted until 2008.

he could not put it more bluntly than his first inaugural. quote, government is not the solution to our problem. government is the problem. that simply eat those defined for new antigovernment era. the only democratic president during this time, bill clinton played on the republican political turf. the mirror image of nixon and ice power during the new deal area. went in at the reagan in 1996 when he said the era of big government is over. but by 2008, the reagan era of shrinking government ended and it ended for one reason. the gap between product dignity and wages. they began to detach in the late 70s and early 80s and they became so large that by 2000,

median income actually started to decline and for the first time in american history, it has stayed in decline for more than a decade. returning 1950 and 1980, productivity and wages broadly defined, i don't just mean hourly salaries, but all salaries, hourly or otherwise. productivity and wages went up in tandem at a very high rate, creating a golden era of middle-class opportunity. starting around 1980, the two began to separate. productivity continue to rise at a rapid rate in the economy grew, while wages continue to go up, not at the same rate as productivity. as the forces of technology and globalization began to kick in. by 2000, those forces, private-sector forces, not

government forces, that is what globalization, technology and automation are, became so strong that incentive productivity going up in wages going up less, wages started to decline. while productivity continue to go up. even in the so-called prosperous years of the last decade, 2001 to 2007, economists were surprised to learn median wages are declining here but it had been asked by the fact that average wages were going out the cause of great games at the high end of the spectrum, leaving the median behind. the reasons this half and can be both obvious and opaque. as technology continues to advance, automation supplants employment across a number of different industries. low skilled and even high skilled wage and salary workers lose their jobs to machines.

globalization enabled by technology allows businesses and employers to locate or relocate marcus halfway around the globe, putting downward pressure on wage is. while overall technology has many good effect, making markets more efficient, it cannot be denied. if it's a downward pressure on wages. over the last decade, these forces have caused a media middle-class income to decrease by a large 6.5%. adjusted for inflation, the median income is actually $3600 lower than in 2001. the decline in income caused the great tectonic plates that are good meets our local economy, pro-government 1932 to 1980, antigovernment activity went to back to you. when barack obama campaign, he

offered a pro-government message, telling people that they need government again, that they aren't high on their own anymore. middle-class americans bought into it because they felt it in their bones, the deck was stacked against them. obama was able to govern on a pro-government mandate because the positions were right. we felt a shock for the global technological economy that was only in order of magnitude shy of what our country faced in the 30s and the middle-class is no longer confident he had a bright future. democrats captured the house, senate and presidency with a broad mandate to use government to stop the freefall caused by the financial crisis and reverse the middle-class decline. the administration deserves a lot of credit for moving quickly and decisively to pass the stimulus, which saved our country from a depression and included several an important and politically attuned

provisions like massive middle-class tax cuts. in fact, both the t.a.r.p. and the stimulus were glaring examples that only government can counter the big forces in our political economy and passing the stimulus was a positive first step to a democratic majority would go to work for the middle-class. but this is not break off or democrat that could have been for two reasons. first, republican tried to block it from the very start in early 2009. democrats were unable to process larger stimulus is the economy required. only the republicans would consider voting for the stimulus. specter, collins and snowe and they demanded antigonish into the size of the stimulus. and therefore, while it certainly prevented things from any worse, its positive effects did break through. and second, it was a mistake,

franka, for democrats in congress to make the breath of the stimulus so wide that funding seem to be going to any number of pet programs and not just things that would jumpstart the economy. it gave republicans the opportunity to create the impression the bill was loaded up with pork, which they used to frame the whole bill, even though it was only maybe 5% of it. as a taxpayer funded in the way of special interests. said the stimulus, even though absolutely successful as a measure to pull our economy back from the brink was not as successful as they could have and politically in making the middle-class feel the government was for them. after passing a stimulus, democrats should have continued to propose middle-class oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. unfortunately, democrats blew the opportunity the american people gave them.

we took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem. health care reform. now the plight of uninsured americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company prior this is certainly needed to be addressed. but it wasn't the change we were hired to make. americans were crying out for the end of the recession for better wages and more jobs, not changes in health care. this makes sense considering that 85% of all americans got their health care from either the government, medicare, medicaid or their employer. under health care costs are going up, it didn't effect them. the affordable care at the same at the 36 million americans who were not covered. it has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote. in 2010, only 40% of those are your coat it. so even if the uninsured kept at the rate, which they likely didn't, it would still only be

talking about 5% of the electorate. with a huge change in mandate is such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. so when democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person democrats are not paying enough attention to me. again, our health care system was riddled with unfairness and inefficiency. is a problem desperately in need of fixing. the changes made are and will continue to be positive changes. but we would have been better able to address it if democrats had first proposed and passed program aimed at a broader swath of the middle-class. had we started more broadly, the middle-class would've been more receptive to the idea president obama wanted to help them. the initial safety placed in him would have been rewarded.

they would've voted more pro-government view it would have given them the permissions structure to build a more pro-government coalition. then, democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation's health care crisis. as it turns out, the backlash to the passage of the health care field or tea party movement, which was sponsored by the economic crisis and the discontent of 2008. the tea party took waited vantage of the democrats and the president focus on health care and said this government is aimed at someone else. not you. furthermore, playing on the anomalies in a complicated bob and implementation problems with the obama health care plans come at a tea party steve, government does the work and cannot work for you. adding insult to injury, neither the obama administration or democrats in congress paid much attention to the messaging of health care because we were so

busy with his passage and intimidation. republicans in the antigovernment tea party filled that vacuum and spent 2010 convincing the average american that not only did obama cared not work for them, not only would it pervade a merge, but they turned obamacare into a general metaphor and falsely convince the electorate that government would work anywhere. so, even though the pro-government tectonic plates held and the decline of middle-class incomes still gave democrats and ultimately better argument, the focus on obamacare gave antigovernment horses are a good party music or a new life, at least temporarily. they tea party, funded by groups like koch brothers another right-wing forces dominated the 2010 election anti-government forces handed the upper hand. all movements that live inside

their ideological bubble, the tea party went too far on issue after issue. people realized that they were extreme. far, far outside the mainstream and average americans didn't want the dramatic retailing of government advocated by the tea party at this point mainstream republicans. obama was reelected in 2012 because the tea party fit yours for 2010 didn't solve middle-class problems. incomes continue to decline. the people gave president obama and the democrats another chance. but this time, democrats offered no underlying explanation of the new government agenda that would change people's lives and make them better. the election of 2012 is essentially a negative one, a rejection of the tea party extremists rather than embracing a large, strong democratic platform. in 2013, with the victories in

the house and senate, democrats could have been poised to act. the public expected programs aimed at the middle-class but republicans decided to block all attempts at pro-government expansion and did so successfully given the remaining control in the house and the 60 votes to get anything done in the senate during the first three quarters of 2013 come up or out in forces are equal in strength. neither party gained the upper hand. but when republicans went too far and shut down the government, the ratio by which people favored democrats over republicans jumped. unfortunately for us, the shutdown was followed shortly thereafter by the disastrous rollout of the online exchanges. the rollout was a great example of government ineffectiveness and became the perfect anecdote for the republican antigovernment. this problem was compounded throughout the spring and summer

of 2014 by a cascade of issues that fairly or unfairly served to illustrate the inability of government to solve problems. va, white house, ebola, said three, all filled by an unrelenting and sensationalist media that exaggerated hype and emphasized negativity of these events. now had middle-class incomes been going up at this time quite a temporary government failures, which directly affected only a very small percentage of the population would not have the same electoral impact, but they played on a substrate of decline. as a result, americans in 2014, disillusioned with government were voted out those they considered in comments, the democrats engage republicans another chance. now the past six years can be summed up by the middle-class frustrations with whom they regarded as the incumbent party.

each time a party appeared to be in charge, but is unable to convince the public they have the solution for easing middle-class decline, the electorate picks the other party, creating a sort of elect or a whiplash. successive alternative -- alternating way the elections in 2008, voters tired of republicans who would then in charge but in democrats here in 2010 voters tired of democrats in charge but in republicans. in 2012, tired of republican, they put democrats back in nl in 2014 with the perception that democrats were in charge, they flip back to the republicans. each case, with maybe the exception of 2008 represents a fundamentally negative election, a rejection of the party perceived to be charged, rather

than louisiana tech support of the party they voted for. the dramatic oscillation between elections just that the current discontent will continue until one party convinces the middle-class voter that it has a vision for and an agenda that will accomplish creating good jobs and increasing middle-class incomes. i'm not struggle will be played out on the same battlefield that has dominated political stripe since 1832. the pro versus anti-government goldfields. now, who is going win that fight? when middle-class incomes are declining, democrats have a natural advantage to understand why we must examine when middle-class incomes have declined, why the continued product to many of our economy doesn't result in middle-class economic advancement.

it can be described really in one word. technology. technology allows capital to garner a far greater share of increases in the fruits of a modern efficient economy that neither can obtain. technology allows machines, computers and robots to produce goods more efficiently than workers can displace the service workers. technology allows distribution networks to a plumber rates and become more efficient, allowing a wal-mart or amazon to be created that displaced millions of workers in mom-and-pop stores technology allows companies to locate far from where the markets are and seek lower labor costs. first -- a first in the southern united states and now overseas. and technology is a

private-sector force in a free-market economy. it is primarily the private sector that produces efficiencies by technology, making them more profitable by reducing the number of workers they employ in the amount of dollars they need to pay them. let me be clear. this is not a cry to stop these forces. these large forces, technology, automation, globalization are not inherently malign forces. in fact, they often make the production of goods and services more efficient. we can't stop progress, nor do we want to. an attempt to stop these forces would he take the bird machines in the early 1800s or 1800s through the unitarians who wanted everyone to stay on the farm in the 1890s. but democrats are proposing is not to stop these forces are slow them down, but to figure

out ways for the middle-class to adapt these new forces to be able to thrive amidst these forces. we must create an environment where the middle-class can successfully navigate these new cds. democrats and republicans have diametrically opposing answers with addressing the question of how we increase middle-class incomes. public areas to give her forces even more power to function without inhibition. this answer is fundamentally counterintuitive to many economists and to most middle-class voters. a private-sector force is, globalization, automation, centralization are causing my problem, why give these forces even more power?

reduce constraints on companies moving overseas. reduce the ability to protect workers when they are badly treated or discriminated against. reduce the ability of workers to upgrade educational skills to become unemployable in the new technological world. these answers make no sense. not only to most democrats, but most americans that the democratic answer is far more compatible with middle-class thinking and needs. when large forces, harnessed and encouraged by the private sector push you around and you feel helpless, you need a large counterforce to stand up to, to stand up for you. the only force that can give you the tools to stand up to the large tectonic forces that can mitigate the effects that technology creates on your income is an active and committed government that is on your side.

.. the democratic pro-government answer has the natural high political ground at a time when

incomes are declining. that doesn't necessarily mean we always when. we have the pro-government plan when the pro-government messes up we can easily lose as 2010 and 2014 showed. this is the root cause reason as to why democrats will be the majority party for the generation. it is important and ultimately more dominating than any temporary tactical advantage either party gains. the private sector unleashing the private sector won't solve middle class needs in the middle-class. a strong government on your site well. even in this past election debacle for democrats was not a repudiation of government and in fact shows that we are the

favorites in 2016 if we produce a believable pro-government approach. fact, in alaska and arkansas, deeply conservative states with deeply conservative republican candidates running for office, minimum wage increase is passed and increases past and those conservative republicans were forced to back them. they were on the ballot. fact, according to the latest nbc news wall street journal poll taken after the election, here are the three most popular things people said congress should do next year, 82% congress should provide access to lower the cost of student loans. 75% spend more on infrastructure. 65% raise the minimum wage. these are all government actions. fact, the gallup poll has detected almost no fallout and the american people's desire for more active government. since 2010 about one third

favored more active government, a third less active government and one third something in between. put another way, two thirds of americans are open to the idea that an active government can improve their lives and that one third in the middle are often those who are not opposed to larger government but who does dot ibiza do not believe it will ever be on their side. it bears repeating. the 2014 election was not a repudiation of government in general just another sign the government is not doing enough to fix our country is in the middle-class problems. but right now the american public is so cynical about government that a democratic pro-government message was not immediately be successful. so let me explain. just as the industrial revolution unleashed forces that

were tarnished by the robber baron the economic order created by the globalization and the technology without government intervention has not been beneficial to those at the top of the economic heap. the wealthiest among the entrenched corporations. look at how the productivity stock market values have continued to climb while incomes have stagnated and the share of corporate profits that go to labor have fallen. so when the government has seen as working for those interests who already have the advantage, americans are sour and frankly angry. deep down, americans are much less concerned with who the government works for them the size or scope. so in order to restore the belief in the affirmative government as a force for good we have have to do that in two steps. the first is to convince voters that we are on their side and

not in the grips of special interest. to borrow president clinton's p5 phrasing we must first prove that the era of the corporate influence over the government is over. big business, big banks, big oil. they may be allowed a seat at the table but right now americans feel that the big special interests are buying the whole room and renting out for profit. it out for profit. when the government can do is to these forces and lobbyists and lawyers carveout ridiculous loopholes that amounts to taxpayer kickbacks to the corporations, americans feel the government isn't working for them. some of them were propped up or bailed out by the government for what seems on its face blatant fraud. americans feel the government is not working for them. when the ceos and executives pay more than their secretaries americans of americans feel the government isn't working for them. so in a lament of populism even for those of us that do not

consider ourselves populist is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented. they are neither pro or anti-government and what not to be opposed to the government that must first be convinced that it will be on their side. only then after democrats can convince middle-class americans that we are the party that left the government back on their side can we embark on the second crucial step which will cement the pro-government majority, proposing and passing legislation that is effective and focused on reversing the middle-class decline. that two-step strategy must be the blueprint. indeed, it should unite to democrats from elizabeth warren and hillary clinton to joe

manchin. it draws on the concerns of progressives who done so well to highlight that the economy stacked the deck against the middle-class in favor of the special interests and if we do our job well, it offers a positive pro-government message that moderate democrats can so even in the deepest red states. every democrat can follow the playbook. and it will work for the traditional part of our base and help us win back those core working-class voters who turn out in most presidential midterm elections and decidedly trained against democrats in this election. i want to address the second step putting forth a policy agenda for the middle-class. the big question facing democrats is what should those policies be in how should we decide on them. in the coming weeks and months we will have a debate in the democratic party certainly but in a senate democratic caucus and we will outline what

specific policy measures we hope to achieve in the 114th congress and beyond. but today in the loop of a laundry list of policy measures, i would like to outline dot what policies the democrats will propose that how we should build the party platform to appeal directly to the middle-class and convince them that the government is on their side. here's what i believe should be the five parameters that guide the democratic policies. together they they form the lens through which to consider the politics and benefits of any one policy. first we must ask ourselves is this directly benefit middle-class families in an immediate and attention away. while the policy help increase their incomes or lower expenses in a meaningful way if we are to fulfill the pact with the middle-class we must articulate policies that will make their lifestyle more affordable, period.

the policies must be aimed to, not what. not all of these policies will involve spending. for instance, raising the minimum wage and negotiating the trade policies that prevent jobs from going overseas, changing the labor laws of the workers can demand more pay but rather changing the rules of the game to make it easier for the middle-class to fight the forces that they are up against. second, the policies should be easily explained. can it be be grasped almost into italy as something that will help middle-class families. third, is it likely to happen ex- democratic prerelease should be achievable. asked they must be easy to message but they have to be a lot more than just messaging bills. fourth, does the policy affects a broad swath of americans even though healthcare data for a small slice of the country. there are even some policies that would help constituencies

in the middle-class but not a great deal of people. those policies should be considered but they shouldn't be the core of the democratic platform. and fifth, our program cannot seem like a group of policies that must fit together in an effective theme and symphony so people don't see individual democrat programs as individual pieces but rather as a part of a whole. if the democrats follow this rubric we will create a national path that you can help convince middle-class americans that in this modern world, the government isn't only helpful but a necessity. we are more than willing to work with our republican colleagues to get legislation that meets these criteria. one thing we won't have to worry about is that idea that republicans will adopt a positive middle-class agenda before we get a chance to do so. that won't happen. republicans enamored in the

concept that only the private sector can solve america's problems will only be effective at fostering negative attitudes towards government instead of focusing on the middle-class people spend their time bashing immigration reform that but when it comes to doing anything positive they will be paralyzed. look at the new proposals or the proposals for the new congress. their specific ideas of a positive attainable agenda revolves around two issues approving the keystone pipeline and repealing the medical device tax. the pipeline might produce about 9,000 temporary jobs in one limited and read part of the country. give me a break. a good highway bill, highway infrastructure built they can't bring themselves to support would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and provide decades of economic benefit and

the medical device tax many democrats including myself look for its repeal. it might create a few jobs they certainly slow industry that funding the nih would create hundreds of thousands of jobs not only with medical devices that pharmaceuticals, but pharmaceuticals, biotech and a host of other spinoff industries. in both cases, the republicans are focusing on the short-term needs of a few narrow special interests instead of the long-term benefit of those interests as well as the broad middle class. so our work is cut out for us. we don't have to worry because the republicans are neither able to fill the void. they will just continue their ways. but in 2015, we have to show the american people that we will be ready to govern as a united party.

to win the election and to govern effectively thereafter, democrats must make sure three things are in place. first with the party firmly embraces government and doesn't run away from it. second, but we are prepared to take on special interest when necessary and showed the average person that the government can be on their side. and hardest of all that we come up with a policy plan that is focused, easily understood, achievable, broad and gets together to form a larger narrative. we must have our party but as moderate and liberal embrace the strategies and we must have our presidential candidate or candidates on the same page. this is our most important mission during the year 2015. together, democrats must embrace the government. that's what we believe in. it's what unites our party and

most importantly, it is the only thing that is going to get the middle-class going again. if we run away from government, downplayed or act as if we are and interest by its full, people won't vote for our version of the republican view. they will vote for the real mccoy. of course if people really don't believe the government can deliver they will follow the republican path. republicans will continue to pay the government as the enemy and the media will continue to highlight the government failure because they make a better copy than the government success. that leads the job to estimate cuts. if we run away from government, the negative misperceptions will take root and even if people support our ideas they won't believe the government can deliver. for democrats, that create the next essential crisis because we are the party that believes in the government as a force for good. with the robust defense of government to renew the public faith in the institutions,

sorry, without a robust defense of government to renew the public's faith in our institutions, we will be eternally hamstrung fighting for ideas to help the middle-class but holding back for the fear of being identified as advocates of the big government. but beyond the political imperatives and even more importantly, there is a deep, vital and substantive and heritage for the democrats to embrace government and make it work for the middle-class and. if the government doesn't deliver, the middle-class will be left without the only advocate powerful enough to have given a fighting chance in our modern economy. if the vision of the government stripped bare comes to pass, wages defined will continue to decline or even plummet as the productivity continues to progress.

incomes will continue to decline. college education will be hard to afford. good paying job harder to secure. if the republican vision of the government that doesn't invest, regulate or stimulate, carries the day a comfortable middle-class life will be harder and harder to achieve for most americans. if income continued to decline for the next ten years, people will become sour, angry and subject to spell of the demagogues. different racial, religious, ethnic and economic groups will turn on each other in a way we have not seen in almost a century. the grand optimism that is america will be extinguished. we will become a sour and angry people. as the flickering light of the american dream bundles into the america that we know and love no

longer exists. but if democrats embraced the government and if we set about convincing the american public that it does not have to be held hostage by powerful interests, but instead can be a strong wind at their backs if democrats embrace government and propose it to the believable agenda that average americans understand will make their lives better and their income grow not only will we win the election but we will capture america and its imagination for the next generation. if we can do all that, we will have saved the american dream and the flaming torch held by the the lady in the media and the harbor in the city in which i live who will burn brightly again in the heart of every american. thank you.

so we do need to take some questions >> let me try this as an opening question, senator. your prognosis is that republicans will fail because they are going to block all of the positive middle-class provisions that you said that the democrats wanted to but you're saying democrats will fail because the republicans will block everything. it sounds like you're not suggesting that there is an opportunity for the middle to succeed. is there a way that what you're proposing can actually happen rather than the view that we have no hope >> one important modification. it's not simply that republicans will fail and block things. the whole philosophy if you look at everything they advocate is

like the big powerful sectors run unrestrained. don't get in the way of sending jobs overseas and letting people have their rights in the workplace. don't get him away or do anything the public sector to help people go to college or make schools better. what i am fundamentally saying which is so important is that the philosophy. the title of my speech is how we are going to win in 2016. we hope that if we proposing that benefit the middle-class the middle class that meets the criteria that i laid out maybe

the republicans will support us. look again in alaska and arkansas two of the most conservative candidate endorsed the minimum wage. he had to. it was on the ballot. and the republican leadership i think the allies is the as the pure obstructionism isn't going to help them. can they convince the stronger team party a lament in their party to do some things with us that's the 64,000-dollar question. getting things done for the middle-class is good for us. if they don't, we will pursue and ideally there will be the kind of reaction that you've seen in the last few that will be larger.

>> i have two quick questions. one is you talked about the government but what about the state government. there are issues between the state roll into the national. and then the other thing is in the interest groups. what i apply as a federal official the federal government .-full-stop the tone particularly for the democrats in 2016. that's what i say to the state government as well and.

in terms of interest groups i will tell you the answer it's not just to big corporations of big corporations or that there are lots of interest groups we have to focus on the middle-class. we have to discount interest groups of all types and say is this going to benefit the average voter? if you run your politics not through intermediates, i've tried in the 30 or the 40 years i've been an elected official to talk directly to the people coming and i think that is what we have to do. talk to the average voter and say here's what we are doing for you and not worry about the intermediaries. >> a couple of questions about health care. first regarding what you said about health care being the wrong priority back in 09 and 2010, did you make that point clear to others in the democratic party at the time? >> yes. people fought andught and i undd

this, people thought this was the one opportunity, it's a very important and we should have done it. we shouldn't have done it first. we were in the middle of a recession. people were hurting and decide what about me. i'm losing my job. it's not health care that healthcare that bothers me. what about job vito healthcare. i can do the things i used to do. it's not my health care as i said about 85% of all americans are fine with their health car in 2009 mainly because it was paid for by either the government or their employer, private sector so they were not clamoring. the average middle-class voter or not opposed to it when it started out but it wasn't at the top of the agenda created that allowed the opening for the team party which was playing on the angst of the recession, the deep recession to say c. they are not focused on what you're doing. and at drawing people to what i think was a false conclusion. it's the governments fault. >> is there any concern that

what you're saying how it could plan to the republican efforts? >> no i don't think that they need anything else to play into their effort but i would say one thing. you look at the ads in 2010 and in 2014, there were very few republicans that called for the repeal. different in 2010. it's not that it's still seen as a positive issue. the message in 2010 is still that it has much less weight than it used to when it moved on to other issues by and large. >> c-charlie clarke with government executive. how much do you think the republicans will have the next congress and cutting programs and maybe even eliminating the agencies? the >> here's another thing about the elections. not very many republicans were harping on the deficit and too

much spending. it was out there but it wasn't at the top of their list. mainly because this is an advantage of the healthcare bill that happens later. it doesn't affect 2010. i don't even know if it was an issue in this campaign that substantively, health care costs, the slope is going way down instead of ten or 11% a year going to you're going up to were 3% a year and that has helped wring our deficit down rather significantly because the biggest reason the deficit was the thing up is going up is the increased cost of medicare and medicaid. some actually have a positive effect. don't get me wrong i think it is a good bill and i am proud to have voted for it that it should have come later. senator schumer, whether the democrats consider the strategy of giving the republicans a way to -- >> i've never liked that strategy. they may do it themselves. we have to be true to who we are.

we are a party of average folks in the middle class and if for some reason the republicans would want to put something on the floor that i think would help the middle-class and we think would help the middle-class i think we have to support it and we would. we are a pro-government party. we have been all along. you can't run from it. and as i mentioned that it's divided the party from 1932 until this day. the thought that i mentioned it's probably more pro-government than collins. >> following up on the first on the economic agenda that you refer to as the things that can get done how long is the window here and what can be done? >> you would have to sit in the republican caucuses and see how strong the republican leadership

which you know that he party passes into the failure pass to overcome them. one of the problems of course is in so many congressional districts and in a large number of senate districts and republican primaries is large if not dominant so it has a hard thing for them to do. so they are looking at the interest of their party in 2016 versus the individual politics of each of the states and districts and a conflict. where they come out i don't know. i'm -- i didn't do what i get into specific issues here. we are going to have lots of discussions in the caucus but we have to come out for the kind of plan that i outlined. not immediately because as i said i don't think that our colleagues in the republican side will be filling the void but it has to be michael b. by january 12016 to have all of the things that i've been outlined done outlined in the democrats united on them. >> [inaudible]

>> the fractious press corps. >> we are doing best we can one by one with the microphone. >> take you for taking the questions. i want to talk about the trade agenda. >> i'm not going to get into specifics but as i told you -- go ahead. >> my customers custom was going to be the transpacific partnership and the authorities that can be made to benefit and something democrats could support. >> i would wait and see what the proposals are that the overwhelming view of the voter and i think that the view of most democrats is that the trade overall even if it's brought other benefits has hurt wages significantly. what do we do about that? >> i wanted to ask about a topic of the day. can i just ask a question about the president's executive order on immigration? and i wondered if that would

incentivize people to come to the country even though the president has said specifics about who would be eligible. it still has caused the -- >> i don't think that it will. no. >> i want to ask about the likely provision that you talked about in your speech. how do you define likely because there are a couple of ways you can look at what will pass -- >> i'm looking at -- iv believe that the democrats if we come up with a good strong middle-class agenda which we will all have a large victory in 2016 reminiscent of 2008. then we have to be prepared to act on the things that matter and will lift the middle-class income.

if we can do that we are not the same as roosevelt but that is a great model. things are a mess. a bigger mess than most people know. those of us that are out on the streets every day talking to people realize the english of average voters. and as i said in a speech, the great thing about america among other things is our optimism. other recessions were shorter. people said i have tough times now that i know that it will be better ten years from now. they don't say that anymore and they don't delete their kids lives will be better than theirs. so the bottom line is if we are able to reverse that and convince people that we can, which i believe we can people be the majority party for a generation. so we are going to have to look at the 2,015th, 2016 time and played by the ear. if they are willing to work with things we think will benefit the middle class, we should go with

them. but we can't sit and wait and nor do i believe an answer directly to your question that we should minimize the policies because we might not be able to pass them in the house. mine are at a more broadly creating the the next generation like we had in 1932 to 818,222,002 cementing the republican or democratic majority for the next generation i don't think that they can do that unless they abandon their belief lets let the private sector do more. >> question about your speech how much of what you do in the senate 20142015 will be in the planning and 2016 and i know know you can first secretary clinton but if she's the right person -- >> as i said we have to play it by ear and a lot of it will depend on the balance between the republican leadership which

i think i don't have any doubt that he wants to pass an immigration bill, good immigration bill. but he can't do that because of the dynamics in his party and his caucus. they know. tom donahue said if they don't have a good immigration bill they may as well not as a candidate in 2016 and he is as hard of a republican as they have. so, the question is what happens there. for us, we have to see. we are not going to hold back and doing what we have to divide up as outlined in the speech at least i'm going to try to convince all of my colleagues to do that. but that doesn't mean that certain things come along our way because they decide to the child to us and work with us great, we should do that. we are the pro-government party. obstruction doesn't serve us as well as it serves them because for them it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy the government can't work but after a while people get tired of it.

>> senator schumer. >> one of your former colleagues said that i think? like her cover yesterday it was announced that there would be a vacancy at the top of the pentagon and one of the first things the senate republican majority might have to do is confirm the nominee to be secretary of defense. one of the things we've heard from republicans consistently is sequestration cards have unduly affected the military and i'm wondering if you are worried that the new republican majority might push to rollback those cuts without talking about the cuts to the social programs that can compare to that. >> i think that the budget deficit while still a problem is in a lot better shape than it was three or four years ago and they don't have the same

velocity to make the same magnitudes of cut on the defensive and on different sites that they had several years ago. and second,. i think that they should try to violate that 5050 i think that they would face a president who wouldn't support whatever they passed. hello, senator. the technology globalization thing that you're talking about isn't static. it's going to continue to increase and accelerate. and i'm wondering if there is a sense among you and your colleagues that the way that the fundamental way that the american economy works actually is shifting and if so what is the policy response to that as opposed to making tweaks or things like that is there a fundamental restructuring clicks the

>> it is fundamentally shifting. this loss and income. america has never had a loss in the middle the income for such a long period of time and it certainly never had it even close to such a time when the gdp between 2001 and 2014 i guess i would have to figure it out, but i think that this two thirds of those maybe three quarters the gdp was going up. but middle-class incomes are going down. that's because technology allows capital to get the benefits of the productivity much more than labor. but sooner or later you can't have labor go down, down, down, politically or substantively so that's what you will see in some of the things we are going to propose they will not just be nibbling at the edges there will be significant changes not to stop technology into the technology has all these benefits and productivity coming efficiency but for instance --

not supposed to get into specifics, but one question that i would ask myself why would all of this new competition of the costs go down more significantly for the average middle-class person that might involve certain kind of restructuring. >> we are going to take two or three more. >> a member of the problems you listed at the top of the speech that led to the losses in 2014 d-delta with the administration. how much responsibility do you think they carry? the world changes and and biggest difficulties in changing and it adopted quite a while. the response will say that it's been excellent and there's been very little spread. at kennedy airport every day i forget the exact number but a large number of people arrived from the hotspots, they are carefully monitored and looked

out and help instruct new york out to do and it's worked. the antidote you can't prevent things from happening quickly or can you prevent the press from focusing on the negative. you can look at the story a few days after it happened. the average american watching saddam going to get ebola. i shouldn't go on an airplane or subway that didn't come out of nowhere but if you have a strong middle-class agenda of the number one thing is every bit of polling shows the average voter says make my life better and when the middle class comes rising and people have hope in them, these negativities play less of a role. >> what should they be doing to help the minority tax >> work with us on what i said. >> you designed the democratic

agenda. >> that's exaggerating. i was very much involved. >> many of the policies were in that agenda as he looked back. >> i didn't name any policies. >> the minimum wage wage for example is there anything that went wrong with that? >> that was a big success if you look at the polling data and everything else the greatest success our candidates had was on that agenda just has to be bigger, broader, more prominent and across the whole democratic party. >> are you suggesting an option for democrats might be two of those some of these trade agreements? >> i'm click >> i'm not getting into the specifics. i am saying that i think most people think trade has hurt wages not increased wages even if it increased the gdp and productivity and we have to

examine it very carefully. thank you everybody. >> this has been a wonderful news meeting. >> thank you. it's great to be here. and we are adjourned. >> here's a portion of his comments. >> we tend to volunteer when we needed to and take responsibility when times are

hard and i will tell you right now i think that is this moment in america. we look around and we know we have to change the concept of citizenship. if they vote and pay their taxes they do their jobs as a citizen but that is a good citizenship is. it's no more than a covenant between people that decide to be a nation ended the relationship between people that have more responsibility to and for each other and that's what citizens are. they are joyfully bound to take care of each other and so the concept of citizenship instead of being small and being a set of entitlements or limited responsibilities are expensive if what you are and why you do or don't do what you do and i think citizenship in america has eroded for lots of reasons but it's not the plane thingy plaintiff need to stop and look at the problem.

we can look at partisanship and politics and economic inequality. we can look at the polarization of different parts of our society, but if we look at the problem and we want to fix it instead of going after each individual thing and we want to take a big step it's going to take a big idea. >> as much as we have accomplished in 36 years i don't want to look back at that so much as to look forward for the next couple of months and in the

next couple of months there's a couple things i would like to do. one is to get my defense authorization bill passed. this is an annual effort, major effort involving large amounts of staff. i also want to finish some work on the investigations looking at some gimmicks which are used to avoid taxes. >> i've been a member of congress for 34 years and if i was the manager for a football or baseball team and i had a 34 in one i would be in the hall of fame. so it doesn't bother me. you can't because i wasn't just set on going but i had 18 cochairmen in my district who were supporting me and wanted me to run and i did.

>> a special envoy for climate change todd stern talked to the center for american progress on the future of global climate change policy following the u.s. recent climate change deal with china. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon everyone. i'm president of the center for american progress. it's for defining global talent of the 21st century in an effective response to climate

change. a very belated to introduce the special guest today the u.s. special envoy for climate change. he is uniquely called the fight to speak about the prospects for building the international cooperation needed to solve the climate progress and we are excited about all the progress that he has made most recently. he works on climate policy at the center prior to center prior to taking on his new role at the beginning of the obama administration so we are honored to welcome him back. thanks for being here. a lot has happened in that span of time to traded domestically the administration pushed ahead with an ambitious climate agenda that will take economic security and an environmental benefit for years to come. we all recognize climate change is a global challenge. no single country can solve eleanor make itself immune from its impacts.

that is why galvanizing international action is so fundamentally critical. fortunately, under this administration and thanks to the work of people like todd, the united states has become a leader in the international climate arena. that's on the climate relationship with china that culminated the announcement two weeks ago regarding the respective domestic greenhouse gas reduction goals. we've launched new partnerships in nominating the short-lived but potent climate pollutants and we have ramped up our assistance to the countries looking to achieve the sustainable economic growth and better withstand the impact of climate change including the major pledge just like the $3 billion for the new global climate fund. all of this is tremendously important and galvanized the final stretch of the talks of the country's race to conclude the new agreement a year from now. that is at the world on a sustainable path of long-term

economic growth. china will never act on arguments the world will never act. so we are very excited. a positive >> thanks for joining us here today. i worked for you and with you but now there are no easy questions but you've also come prepared. the last few weeks have given you a lot to talk about and.

what happened with china by climate action in the united states is futile and they never will act. i think that the joint announcement that president obama made has caused people to take a hard look at that viable point going forward so i would love to hear how that came about and what you see as the most important feature. >> first of all thank you very much for hosting. i was partway back at the beginning and go back with john podesta before that. it was a big week for us last

week. if you look back to last or even the arc of what we were doing with china in 2013 was already quite positive and on a good path we established a new working group in april of 2013 on climate change and we got a number of initiatives, significant ones launched. the president negotiated an agreement on the hfc so there was a good momentum going forward and we got together in my office in january of 2014 and wanted to think about what we could do next and how we could take this relationship forward in a significant way and a step up way. secretary kerry was getting ready to go visit china in early february and after talking about a number of possibilities we had

on the number of doing a joint announcement of the targets that would go all the way up to the presidential level assuming that both sides looked at each other's proposals and felt comfortable with it so i accompanied the secretary and started talking to my counterpart about the idea that the secretary talked to the president and others in china about this notion and that kind of started the conversation end and the chinese were open to it but there was obviously a lot of work that needed to be done and a lot that was done over the course of a year to share a lot of information. initially we talked about collaborating into the underdevelopment of the targets.

we said that publicly and privately in the understanding we would shoot for this joint announcement if we could both get their. it was always in our view something that would have a very significant positive impact with respect to both the climate relationship in the u.s. and china and the broad relationship by letter will be between the u.s. and china and of course the multilateral climate negotiations and hopefully that will all prove to be true. the targets that china put forth and that we put forth and china i think are both strong on our side. 26 or 28% reduction below the 2005 levels by 2025 is very

ambitious and was designed to be as ambitious as we possibly could on the basis of the authorities that we knew we had and we didn't want to come up with a pie in the sky kind of targeted based on legislation that we might or might not be able to get, so everything that this is sort of grounding and our target is that it's based on authorities that we have. the 28% that we are committed in the agreement to try to get what was on a straight put us on a straight line path to over 8% reduction by 2050. so, it's very strong. for the chinese, it's the first time ever obviously that they've committed to the emissions and this is a big step if you look at all sorts of analytic bodies of people like the iea and

others the estimations tended to generally be a good deal higher than that. the announcement includes their commitment to try to go earlier than 2030. i think our sense is that they would have a good chance to do that assuming that the broad economic restructuring program to the president is pursuing hard end of the chinese are very committed to assuming that that goes well and that there is a real chance that they would be able to peak earlier than 2030. the other part of the target that they announced is to give 20% of their non- fossil energy from 20% of the non- fossil sources which is actually a huge undertaking for them. it would require them to build something like 802,000 gigawatts

of renewable and nuclear energy and just by way of comparison, the total u.s. generating capacity in our country is a little over 1100, so you're talking about 800,000 editors also by way around what they do now and they do more than what they do now total from coal. so i think a very big deal. we will see what transpires, but a really big step i think. our sense is that the way that this will resonate in the broad climate community will be very

-- it will rattle a lot of things up no doubt it will overall that it will overall be very positive and it will give momentum to the negotiations. i think that it will spur countries to come forward with their own targets and i think generally the way that i put it in one conversation recently is that if you were holding stock in the paris negotiations or stock would have gone up after this announcement because here you have the two historic antagonists, the biggest players on climate change and come together at the presidential level to say we are going to work together. here's what we are each doing. the announcement being ambitious so i think all and all very good. >> i wonder if one of the things that you mentioned was a sort of

evolution of the u.s. china relationship over the past by just moving going back to the sunny lands that 2009. you know, do you have any sort of views on how that has matured over what are the important moments in the relationship? >> copenhagen is a very important moment in the relationship in terms of spurring the greater desire to get more, to get the relationship on a more cooperative footing. copenhagen was a pretty -- my own view is copenhagen was important and important things got done and it was positive things that have happened since. if copenhagen had occurred, but saying that some of the interaction between the u.s. and china was pretty rough in that meeting and i think that both

sides came out and i certainly think this is true for the chinese side as well as ours with a desire to work in as collaborative and cooperative way as possible. i have developed a very good relationship with the vice chairman. he's a good friend at this point. we've taken each other to our hometown as we spent a lot of time together and as i've long since lost track of how many times we've mixed together and how many hours we spent. but i think that we worked quite well together and so i think that has been true in the years in 2010, 2011, 2012 and then as i said last year i think it's stepped up 2013 stepped up to another level of engagement with

the new climate change working group and a lot of discussions and meetings with respect to those various initiatives that we have worked on editing this year year a whole another level, so i think it's been gradually improving and building the word what we've got now and obviously this this isn't the end of the story. we just have to keep moving forward. >> a lot of attention gets paid to the chinese willingness to fully cover up its local quality challenges. do you find that interest and goal is present in your climate discussions now in a way that it maybe wasn't a few years ago because when we think back to 2010, it certainly wasn't directly. is it just sort of influencing it above or around.

interestingly, i think that the process of the u.s. embassy we didn't have anything to do with this by the way, this was an initiative that occurred in the embassy but the fact that the embassy started to publish the statistics about the air pollution statistics and make those available to people in china actually had a big transformative effect.

i think that has an impact on what they do on climate, but it is not the case so much much what we have our climate discussions there's a bunch of discussion about air pollution. it is as you said around and it is influencing from our point of view of the thing the thing that's most important, obviously these views known to the chinese counterparts quite clearly. it is also positive regarding their worse energies because if that is not self-evident if you decide decide to believe that you're going to deal with the air pollution problem is to take the coal plants and move them last and build transmission lines and pump all of the power back but not actually reduce coal that doesn't help you very much for the claim is change point of view although it would

get air pollution out of these cities. .. so it's a big concern for them. >> yeah, i think so. i think though. i think that day -- i think