is a diverse haggerty play football at university of arkansas so his legislation from the resilient federal forest act treats both the success of overgrown mismanage forest and symptoms which include wildfire, disease and insect infestations. i strongly support the bill. i'd like to ask consent that we include a bipartisan op-ed that congressman westerman and his democratic colleague have written entitled resilient federal forest act to treat symptoms and diseases into the record. very quickly, mr. stewart, one of these issues largely high profile in the west, we have serious impacts in the south and i'm really pleased that you were a witness and from that region which includes a significant point of federal forest, private family planned own, ownerships and an assortment of things. while i know you report focused largely on the west, how are the

issues in the south similar or different when it comes to wildfire? >> again we talked about neo-political boundaries answer with lots of wildfires do not as large but they are all catastrophic when we have them. we have again at the impact on the budget effects those states not in the west just like it affects the states in the west. if we look at the state and private programs and the mitigation efforts and the employment of the service forster's and others were doing work for the private land owners, they are so impacted outside the west as a result of these fires and what the budget is handled. so it's a very significant impact for the country spend what more can we do on public lands since much of it in action stems from lack of public land management? does speed is our focus principally is on private land and so that's what our focus is.

but certainly the more management we have on both public and private lands, the more successful we are going to be a mitigating not only the risk but the exposure we have for not just, from wildfire but also as we reported in our report was submitted to the committee is related to water as well. that's not exclusive to the west. >> have you taken a position on the bill speak was not that i know of, no. >> very good. what more can we do to stimulate markets for forest products help address these wildfires and other issues? >> i'm kind of a market person so i think it's not a field of dreams approach necessarily that we take care, but something has to give this virtuous cycle started. i think the grant programs they can begin to develop markets for force the need to be restored,

public or private, is most appropriate as well as programs that identify those markets and the last component of it relates to research. i know in the renewable bioproducts institute where i work at georgia tech a lot of the focus is on the bio-based materials. it will be the backbone i believe that the future of art dream chemistry materials industry of the future. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all fo for being here speak let me advise numbers with eight minutes left. senator casey, if you could wrap up for us. >> thank you, thank you very much. i want to thank the witnesses for being you. we're grateful for your testimony. i wanted to me be direct my questions to our first two witnesses. and i say this as representing a state where we've got something about, something any order of 57% of our state is forced to do. read about 80,000 people work in the forestry business. this is a major issue for

pennsylvania. mr. dessecker, you spoke of budget certainty or lack of budget certainty, and you also talked about the specific issue of funding for wildlife suppression affecting the ability of the forest service to meet wildlife management and invasive species management. can you talk with those two issues, i know that related but i think it bears repeating how devastating at least in my judgment sequestration has been and among other problems you've had to face with regard, or the country has had to face with regard to budget uncertainty spill with regard to uncertainty, it's rampant within the agency at this point because although they the budget they simply don't know what proportion will be pulled major or later so they don't know exactly what portion they can spend. they do get directors to watch what they're doing. to have to determine how the

fire season is gone before they can implement projects that they've already planned. >> we appreciate you raising that. i know we are very limited on time. mr. dougan, i wanted to ask you, i noted in your testimony about 20 years of fighting fires, a good part of your life. and the focus that you brought on the issue of well trained firefighting staff, can you walk us through that basic concern that you? >> yeah, there's a system in place in an interagency system in place that was put together to certify wild land firefighters. and they are required to take certain training, certain on the job training, and they are evaluated on the job. and then if they are found proficient, then they are certified to do certain jobs in the organization.

and again, part of the problem is, you know, we've got a lot within the federal government, we've got a lot of people we invested a lot of money in and have a lot of years that are at that age that they are making plans to retire and walk out the door, and within this going to go that knowledge and those skills. the federal government over all has not done, in my opinion, a really good job of succession planning, not just in the fire organization but certainly across many other agencies. so that's one of the things we are facing. the other problems that we have again our budget related. about of agencies, if they have concerns over the budget, typically the first thing that they set aside to try to save money is the training, and travel, which is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy for not

being able to do a good job of succession planning within the future leadership of the fire management workforce. >> mr. chairman, in light of the time i will submit questions for the record. spent a project that. this will conclude our hearing today. i want to thank each of our witnesses for sharing your views of wildfire. that testimony, we will take action. to my fellow members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the question he said that this committee clerk for five business days or by 5 p.m. next thursday, november 12. the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> c-span is the best access to congress. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. watch us online or on your phone and c-span.org. listen live anytime on our c-span radio app. get best access from behind the scenes by following c-span and our capital the reporter on twitter your stay with c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org for your best access to congress.

>> a few live events to tell you about. >> all campaign long, c-span page on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates, at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone,

and always every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> presidential candidate martin o'malley held accountable meeting at the university of new hampshire last week that the former maryland governor talked about climate change, student loan debt and national security. from durham, new hampshire, this is a 45 minutes. spent i take it that wasn't for me. i'm michael ettlinger, i direct the carsey school of public policy. university of new hampshire. it's great to see all you here. all of your interest in public policy and just starting a new masters in public policy degree program, particularly in their junior or senior is a great deal and you should apply. that's not what i am here. i'm here to introduce governor martin o'malley. i just moved to new hampshire about a year ago. before that i'd work in washington in public policy for many years and worked in

washington but i lived in maryland where i had the privilege of having gavin o'malley as my governor for eight years. i guess having experienced that this is a very effective governor. you know, reduced tuition, he froze tuition. geek out minimum wage raised, dream act, investment in public education to a real record of accomplishment. and really something i care a lot about, really worked on making just doesn't work well and efficient, something he also done as mayor of baltimore. and i think that's one reason why he holds the distinction among governors of that era in that he was initially elected before the great recession, before the financial crisis and was reelected after that crisis hit i have greater margin that he'd won the first time and facing the same opponent. and he had to make all the same

to decisions an and choices that governors all across the country to make i think it says something about the faith the people of maryland had in governor o'malley that he became more popular over that period. so i will end it there and just say welcome, governor o'malley. [applause] spent thanks very much. thank you. michael, thanks very much, and thanks for your kind introduction and look, thank you all for waiting for me. i apologize. i had my campaign plane was late taken off the tarmac. it's not my plan. it was a southwest airlines flight data shared with 200 other people and was about an hour late. so thank you for hanging in there. i hope i'm not making you miss class. [laughter] well, look, thank you for being here. and thank you to all of you who are new hampshire voters do what you do for our country. because out of time a lot of us americans are thinkinghat big

money has dried determine the outcome of election before anybody that a chance to vote at a time of citizens united when cynicism runs very, very high. the great thing about new hampshire is about in the granite state, one person matters. every individual matters, and i know that given your unique role, i know how you have seriously, you take your responsibility to see each one of us. two, three, four, five, six times before you make up your mind. so that's a tremendous service to the rest of the country. most people don't get to see each of us. i have some good news for you. sometimes lasting new hampshire i have no firmly secured third place in this race were the democratic party's nomination. [applause] thank you very much. did you enjoy the debate? some of you saw it. did you have a watch party? it's good to have debates.

debates or how they have the most office that the important office, the office of citizens. we are going to have another debate but now the field is winnowed to three. let me share a few thoughts with you about leadership, about my candidacy and most important about our country. as michael told you my name is martin o'malley. what he didn't tell you is that i am not a form of socialist. i'm not a former republican. i am a lifelong democrat. and i'm running for president of the united states. i am in it to win it and i need your help. and i'm running for one reason and one reason only. that is to rebuild the truth of the american dream that you and i share. the poet laureate of the american dream bruce springsteen once asked, is the dream alive if it don't come true? or is it something worse? we have come a long way is the

country since the crash of 2008. i remember it very well. i stood in line with my citizens as we fought to defend each and every home against these mindless home grinding machines of foreclosures, the job losses but it seemed it was a limbo dance, how low would it go in terms of job losses and despair. agers ago the democratic party put forward a new leader. not to make the perfect decision but to make the best decision possible to move our country forward. that's exactly what he has done. 67 months of positive job growth. our nation has now achieved 67 months in a row of positive job growth. and that is a very, very good news. for tougher news is a this. there is a steal in our country, because of the bad economic policies that predated the president's tour of duty, there is in our country today a

growing injustice the likes of which we've not had to address since the gilded age. it is a fact that there's a growing economic inequality in our country, a growing injustice that threatens to tear our country apart. and injustices many faces but one of them is the fact that eight years after electing president obama, unemployment is higher in places like baltimore city, philadelphia, new york, los angeles, the president's hometown of chicago. and injustice does not solve itself. we have to solve it. the good news is we are americans and we know what needs to be done in order to solve these things because we have sold it before. of the three candidates in this race i'm the only one with 15 years of executive experience. what does that mean? that means that i did not serve for four years in washington in the senate. that's not my background as a legislator. my background is as an

executive, actually pulling people together to get things done. sometimes really, really difficult things. when i ran for mayor of baltimore and was not because our city was doing well. it was because we've allowed ourselves to be the most violent of th the most addicted and the most abandoned city in america. and against and overcoming some pretty deep lines of divisions that all of us as americans have inherited around race and crime and violence and injustice in america, we put our city on a better path, greatly increase in drug treatment, gave it a better future. we did saved a lot of lives. as governor as michael mentioned i had to leave my state through this recession. while some of the governed by to cut their to prosperity, we remembered that no great people ever cut their way to prosperity. so we did more on education. we invested more to make college more affordable for more people. we invested more to bolster our

competitive advantages and innovation economy that we share. we raise our goals for minority and women this participation to the highest of any state in the country and then we exceeded them in recession we raised, we passed the living wage. we raised the minimum wage. and what is the common thread that will for all of those things and a few others like passing marriage equality, passing the d.r.e.a.m. act, passing comprehensive gun safety legislation, repealing the death penalty? i would submit to you that the common thread running through all of those things was that formula of actions. that we've become pretty proficient at taking as americans. not words but actions that include more of our people, more fully in the economic, social and the political life of our country. and that's what we need to do it again as a nation. the economics that led us into

that they crashed are not the economics that are consistent with american capitalism. american capitalism is about full inclusion for all. think of one, i will throw out one example. my dad flew 33 missions over japan, and when he came out he and his fellow gis, because of a far -- the more they would earn him rather more they would learn, the more they would earn and a better our whole economy would do. they sent them to college on a g.i. bill. my wife and i have four kids to our oldest daughters are 24 and 23. they have graduate from college within the last two years with a mountain of bills. what a contrast. we were very proud of them on graduation day. we are going to be proud of in every month for the rest of our natural lives. we are the only developed nation on the planet, ladies and gentlemen, that saddles are graduating cohort in kids from

our colleges with a mountain of crushing debt like we see no. that's a choice. progress is a choice. job creation is a choice. if you want to make our economy work again for everyone, we need to make better choices. because you and i are part of a living cell creating mystery called the united states of america. but the promise at the heart of that mystery is a very real and concrete thing, and that promise has where ever you start, you start in our country, but for your own hard work, your own talent, your own grit and your own love family, you should be able to get ahead and that's what earned us the brand of the land of opportunity. so what do we need to do? as best as i can believe that i think there's three primary areas where we need to make a better choices that allow our economy to work for everybody again. one is to restore wage and labor

policies back to the center of our economic choices. second is to make the investment only we can make in our own country that actually makes our economy and opportunities expand for the next generation. at the third thing is this where our shoulders to the great challenge of our time to let me go back to each of those brief and then let's open it up to questions and answers. by golly, if you answers i am on a search for answers to make sure you put your hand up first. wage and labor policies. thank you for the sound effects. we have to remember as americans, we don't have to put on her falls so far in that anyone the. our economy is not money. it is people. it is all of our people. and yes, we need a new foreign policy of engagement and collaboration, new national security strategy of threat reduction but make no mistake

about it, those things depend on as they get our economy stronger at home. what does that mean? that means just as our parents and grandparents, we need to use commonsense policies that allow anybody to get had not just the highest percentage. that means raising the minimum wage and keeping it above the poverty line all the time. raising it to $15 an hour however we can whatever we can. the more our workers earn, the more money peopl they will spene more our economy will grow. that's american economics 101. that means we. that means we need to take overtime pay for overtime work again. something we stopped doing by the way in the '80s when we stop raising the threshold. we need, instead of cutting social security as a ton of are people move toward retirement with less savings than decades and decades can we need to expand social security so that nobody retires in poverty and the united states. we need to fight for equal pay

for equal work between men and women. we need to expand paid family leave because when women succeed, america succeeds that you want to get wages to go up for everyone? then let's do a couple of other things. let's make it easier rather than hard for people to join labor unions and bargain collectively for better wages. let's get 11 million of our neighbors out of the underground shadow economy by passing comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway of citizenship for all americans. you can apply for that. [applause] -- applaud for that. >> secondly the investment in our own country, look, there's a lot of nations that are seeing a rise in the global, in their middle class. that's all fine and good. it's our cause in the world is to lead by example the rise of the global middle class free from want, free from fear, for he from oppression but we need to make investment in our country. china and india are not going to

do it. they have nation's of their own and nations don't build generational wealth and pass on greater prosperity and greater opportunity by locking cash in the cause. or at the u.s. treasury. instead, the way nations build generational wealth is to invest in the things that last answer beyond just one generation to think about the infrastructure you are traveling on that our parents and grandparents built a think about the new infrastructure of broadband that we need to invest in for the modern economy and think about a couple other things last beyond one generation and can create cycles of prosperity. affordable college. i put forward a plan to move us to debt free college within the next five years and unlike the other two candidates i actually did as governor. we are the only state that went for years in a row without a increase in college tuition. there's other investors we make the last two generations as well as. investment in research and development. look, i'm 52 pick in the age

when i came out of high school the amount of our discretionary investments in things like r&d, education, transportation was twice what it is headed to be right now. which leads me to my third point. are indeed, discovery, cures, technologies. it's all about greater discovery anticipation of human solutions to human problems. the third piece is that as americans every generation, we can figure out how to square our shoulders to the great challenge of our times. and today in these times, the great challenge i'm talking about is climate change. [applause] the greatest business opportunity to comment the united states of america in 100 years. speaking from my own party can we sometimes make the mistake of looking at the science -- you're laughing, connecting the dos.

the problem with doing that is oftentimes the dots draw a straight line to hell. and no appeal that ever began for me prospect of despair ever found fertile ground for success, but this is the greatest business opportunity to come to united states in 100 years. and i'm the first candidate to put forward a plan that lets hope not alaska to move to a 100% clean electric grid by 2050 and create 5 million jobs. unless you think this is pie in the sky, i've been spent a lot of time and women most of the famous states, tied for first place with the hampshire and maryland, and that is iowa. get this, 30% of electricity generated in iowa comes from iowa wind, and that was not true 15 years ago. and it employs 4000 people and a new wind industry.

and a as you going to cost i pad and you see these big trucks with these huge turbine pieces on them from the great thing about those big turbines is that are too damn big for to make any sense to import them from china or are brought to the have to be produced here in the united states, a circular economy. what a novel idea. so look, those are some thoughts for you. there's other things we need to do as well in order pashtun one of the great anxieties that access to a country is this, especially among older people, is this sinking since we can barely give voice to, that maybe we might be the last generation of americans who is able to get our kids lives that are healthier and with more opportunity. i don't sense that as much among the younger people. when i talk to young people of our country, i don't find the sort of gridlock that

characterizes our national politics. instead what i talk to young people across the united states i rarely encounter young americans to deny that climate change is real or think we should do something about it. i rarely meet young americans that want to discriminate against gay couples or bash immigrants or blame them for the problems with the face as the country. alall of that tells me we are moving to a much more compassionate, and much more connected at a much more generous place. we are standing on the threshold of a new era of american progress. we have but need and leadership required to move across threshold to take the actions come in other words, that make tomorrow better. and you know what? our country and this world has never need us more. than they do right now. for us to do what we do best, to act like americans, to remember that we are all in together, that we need each other and we have to help each other if we are going to succeed.

i need your help in this campaign and look, i know when a guy comes before you anti-stance year with 5% national name recognition which by the way is up 500% compared to what it was in the first debate, that there is a fine line between delusion and imagination. but i am not imagining this. our country is looking for new leadership and we're going to find it in one party or the other. because we can't be this dissatisfied with her gridlock politics the way we shot past each other and what our economy is leading most of us behind. i think resort to old things and polarized politics is going to move us forward. it won't. so i need your help. i'm excited about these next 100 days and lots of people coming, you're facing a tough fight. i like a tough fight. i've always been drawn to tough fights. i think toughest of the fight is the way the hidden god is telling us we're fighting worth

something saving our country is worth saving. the american dream is worth saving and this plan is worth saving. i need your help and i thank you so much for waiting here. thank you. [applause] >> yes, sir? [inaudible] >> on what? [inaudible] spent let me go to this gentleman first and we will go to youth second. automatic. >> i will be right there. spent thanks for being here. my name is miles. i want to bring to what you last talk about, climate change. i think you're asking for answers from the and i think i might have one for you. so we can't overcome climate change without, which is relied on clean energy. we have to rely on reserves that we are currently burning in the ground. in order to stick to the two degrees celsius gauge at the

last, that the world has come together to agree as an acceptable level of warming. 80% of fossil fuels immigrant of the voyage accept that science is and is wondering if accept that speak with yes. >> perfect. >> let me show how i can say buy the things i said and actions i've taken. in our own state we passed the greenhouse gas reduction bill. we set a window will rate from 7% up to 20% which almost seems quaint when i see what other states are doing that in retrospect it would also past a bill to cut energy consumption by 50% but i broke with my own party and urged the obama administration publicly only and repeatedly not to of churning for oil off the east coast and the chesapeake bay. i came out against drilling in the arctic. i am against, i came out against the keystone pipeline etiquette not against it months ago unlike

hillary clinton came out against it a week before the debate. [applause] so this is what i believe. some of these things need to stay in the ground. >> one of the biggest things having an executive can do a spoken out is to stop new leasing on public land. >> i read that the other day. >> and i'm wondering if you would end new leasing on public land? >> i probably would. look, we're not going to get to this clean energy future with an all of the above strategy. we need to be intentional and move towards it. i was surprised to read how much of the coal comes from leased federal lands. over all what we need to do in broadbrush terms to stop subsidizing fossil fuel

extraction and start subsidizing this movement to a clean energy future. [applause] spent i'm sorry. you had a sign spent yes, sir. democracy over empire, liberty over violent empire. empire, you mentioned your father being in japan, over japan. japan. >> over japan. >> that was the japanese empire. not the empire the british empire was the empire that can't citizens as subjects. empire is the causal issue of the singular single issue get my take on this is come and i'm saying this to you, martin, i don't care about all other issues but they are all defined by position on empire. and i don't care which candidate in which party takes a daughter i just want to get empire addressed because it hasn't been addressed to it is the dividing point among people. it is the source of our economic

problem. is the source of our wars overseas. it's the source of our climate problem. we are not dealing susan with the fact that america is the acting like an empire, which obama, to his and indian disgrace, said while bombing libya, we are not there for empire which struck they like "saturday night live" skit off the land shark come knocking at the door. i'm not the land shark. empire is the central issue. what is your position speak with my position is to monitor stand there's a huge difference between an empire and a republic. i'm not partial to empire's. i believe in this american republic and i believe that when we exercise our substantial economic military, diplomatic and political powers it should be done consistent with the principles of a free people, of the people of this republic. and when we exercise these

powers with as a government or multinationals with our flag, and contrary to thos the princis we are the best interest of the united states. yes. do you want this? like the donahue show. >> governor, look, i'm an alumni of the universe and after i graduated from you in 2012 the i'm a young mom concerned about the future of our young people in new hampshire right now. ..

>> i probably spent the balance of my time talking about earlier, the investments we need to make in our own country, clean energy future. but some of them speak to that belief we share as americans and the dignity of every person, that there's no such thing as a spare american. some of them are very much related to problems that erode the very foundationing of who we are as a people. what am i talking about? gun violence, for one, and cutting gun violence in half. we've buried, since 9/11, 400,000 americans from gun violence. could you imagine in they were murdered by al-qaeda what we would be doing to stop this sort of carnage? one anytime wit with -- nitwit with a failed shoe bomb attempt,

and we're all taking off our shoes at the airport. there's another scourge, and that is one-fifth of our kids go to bed every night hungry. so i have declared of eradicating childhood hunger by a date certain. and in our own state we pursued this, and my friend, bill shore who started a foundation called share our strength, has this beautiful phrase. he say, you know, poverty is -- solving poverty is complicated, but feeding a child is simple. and there are already programs in place if we could refrain from cutting them, like the s.n.a.p. program and school breakfast program that would allow us to reach that goal. where kids are concerned, i think we have to do a few things all at once. one is to eradicate childhood hunger. you can't expect kids to learn at the same level if other kids if they're thinking about their stomach for the first three learning hours of the day.

second thing is universal pre-k. i saw as mayor of baltimore our first cohort of kids that had universal kindergarten, we were a little late to that game, scored above the national average in reading and math for the first time. and then this drive to make college debt-free and a component of that is to make sure that -- i talked a little bit about, and there's a plan online for how we achieve debt-free college. but again, back to the threat of inclusion, i think another way that we can include a lot more people in our economy and break cycles of generational poverty is by making more of that fourth year of high school so that when we graduate, when our kids graduate from high school, they have not only a high school diploma that means something, but also a year of college credit that can transfer and a skill in a career technical skill that's in demand in today's economy. so those are some ideas for you.

i also -- yes, ma'am. >> thank you for coming. >> sure. thank you for waiting on me. >> in what ways do you think the threat of climate change will pose a possible threat to our national security? >> in many, many ways. in fact, leading thinkers in our department of defense and planners have been underscoring just what a huge threat unchecked climate change is in terms of sea level rise, in terms of extended periods of drought. the republican candidates, some of them laughed at me when i said that climate change was one of the big contributing factors to the rise of isil. ha, ha, ha, what a joke. but then planners in the defense department said, no, as a matter of fact, that's true. prior to the civil war, there was a massive drought that came over the fertile crescent made worse by climate change, drove farmers off their fields into the cities, the regime there couldn't deal with the needs of

its people. uprisings broke out, suppression followed, civil war followed, nation-state nearly collapses and crumbles, and into that vacuum rises isis. so there are more cascading effects -- many cascading effects to climate change including exacerbateing tensionings in sea lanes of the arctic. potentially continental migrations that can come about as a result of climate change. so one of my very first -- they always ask you when you run for president, what's one of the first things you'll do in the first 48 hours? one of first things i'll do is sign an executive order declaring that making this transition to a clean energy future is our highest national security and economic goal. yes, sir. >> i'm here with the unh -- [inaudible] campaign. >> what campaign? >> fossil fuel divestment campaign. and in the past you've voiced

sport for divestment, so thank you very much. here at unh, divestment is up to a man named morgan rutman, he's the chair of the unh foundation, and i was wondering if you would urge him to divest -- [inaudible] from fossil fuels. >> sure. is he here? [cheers and applause] yeah, look, this planet needs a crowd source healing of the deepest kind. and i think the movement that's going on on the campuses is a very positive thing. and i think not only should there be when you look at the dollars that you have and the dollars you have to invest, i'd encourage them to invest in clean technologies and green technologies if get the return that way. yes, sir. >> hi. i'm david, and i have a question which will follow up his questions about fossil fuels.

public lands, and so we -- [inaudible] leases on public lands? >> i advocated to miles' question probably where the coal concerned, i probably would be in favor of that. i mean, generally, we need to shift away from extraction and into clean. finish and so i would -- that's the movement. that's what we have to do in order to stave off the disaster. yes, sir. >> would you cut military spending, and would you keep us out of war with isis? >> yeah, good -- interesting question. will we cut military pending to keep us out of -- spending to keep us out of war with isis? >> [inaudible] >> let me respond to the gist of your question this way. there is -- just when we learned to protect ourselves in the domains of land, sea, air and space, a fifth domain rose up in

your lifetime called the internet. and so we actually have a need for more robust defense when it comes to securing the global commons of the internet against cyber attacks, cyber thefts. there was an interesting hearing in congress where the head of fbi and other military people all came, and they went down the line, and each of them said that one of the greatest threats we face as a nation is the potential for a sort of pearl harbor type of cyber attack. so there are some things we probably -- there are some areas of the defense budget -- the whole defense budget, let me first of all say, requires greater openness and transparency and accountability to the public. and we should listen to the military planners and advisers about the sort of capacities our men and women need to respond to and reduce threats instead of allowing the defense budget to be determined by politicians and

the lobbyists. there's some things, though, where the answer's not to do less, it's to do more. and our cyber defense is one of those. so we -- every generation we have to be mindful that we're not preparing ourselves to defend the last war. the threats are very much evolving. this movement to special ops forces is one aspect of military reform, drawing downsize -- drawing down the size of our standing army is one way to compensate for that. this is still a need to reduce nuclear arms in this world, perhaps by modernizing our triad capabilities. there are dollars that could be saved there. but overall, when it comes to cyber, we're probably going to have to do more rather than less. could i say one other thing on that? sometimes in these times of scarcity we get drawn into believing the only way to pay more one thing is to stop doing

another. but one of the big entitlements i believe we can no longer afford as a country is the entitlement that the super wealthy among us feel to pay such a lower marginal income tax rate. [applause] yes. >> hello, governor and former city counselor. it's been a long time since i've seen you and your band playing at the charles village farmers' market. i'm a former schoolteacher from columbia, maryland. >> did you live in baltimore city? >> i did. i lived on april avenue. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, i know. i used to walk by your house on a regular basis. [laughter] anyway. and i saw you at politics and eggs before you official he declared, and it's great to see you again. so for me, there's two issues that i see as really significant. one, i'm married to a town manager, so small town government, i recognize how critically important that is and local government. and for all you students out here, please, don't wait until

the last minute to register to vote. [applause] go get your friends and register the vote. i guess one question is how do you think we can encourage kids and younger people to be focused on roque government as -- local government as well? because that has so much of an impact on their daily lives as well as the national elections which, of course, they should be involved in. and my other main concern that i talk about with my children this really harsh divide between the parties and where people have lost their ability to talk respectfully, kindly and openly with one another and recognize that we all, ultimately, have the same goal. it's really about our different vision of how we achieve that goal of world peace and of loving our children and having them have better lives. and so what i'm curious about is some soft to the way -- some of the ways you can help towards that. >> there's a lot in that. let me talk about the local government first. how many of you are political science people? a few of you?

okay. i really enjoyed my time in municipal government and local government. and there's actually a revolution in effective government and governing going on that's bubbling up from our cities and our towns led by really fundamentally entrepreneurial men and women who know that there's no democratic or republican way to fix a pothole or to deliver a city service. and all of these men -- as identify traveled around the country before i decided to make this offering, i did a lot, and i'm spoken probably every j.j. dinner i was invited to across the country. and one of the pleasant surprises i brought home is most of us feel a lot better about how our cities are governed and living in city now than we did 15 years ago. and this revolution that i've seen taking place is that mayors, never having the situational advantage of having information six months before everybody else knew, you know, the reality, they weren't

intimidated by new technologies whether it was 311 centers or the internet or geographic information systems. and that allowed them to bring forward this new way of governing that measures performance not in terms of annual budget inputs, but in terms of weekly outputs. and to put it on a map in ways that are very democratic, small d democratic, in that everyone can see it. if you can log on, you can see that the mayor's filling potholes in my part of town in the same 48 hours that she's filling it in another part of town. or if you live in a poor area, you can see your response times from the police are the same as they are in the wealthier areas uptown. and so to any of you thinking about doing things in government, i found, i've found local government extremely rewarding because you could actually see that you were achieving something, and other people could see it. and you could bring people together around that one map and actually start running plays.

so that's my pitch for local government. the second thing is how do we talk to each other again. there's this irish singer named christy moore, and he does a song, the opening line of it is for all of our languages, we can't communicate. and song's called "natives." that's probably, it's one of the -- it's one of the bigger challenges we face right now at point this time. what technology has allowed us to get our information from sources that are patterned to our likes. we're able to talk to people or even read editorials from only people that agree mostly with our opinions on this this -- on. and we find we may be losing what de tocqueville once said was the greatest strength of this republic, and that is the strength of our soft ties. that whatever our political differences, the different ideas that we may have as how to get to a goal, the goals we share are the same. and the values for all of the

diversity of religions and faiths or people who profess to have no faith, those beliefs we share in the dignity of every person and our own responsibility to advance the common good, our understanding that we're all in this together, we've got to strengthen, you know, those soft ties. this is how i did it as an executive. there were a lot of things that we got done that we would not have gotten done were it not for some republican votes. i think three times i had to try before we succeeded in repealing the death penalty in maryland. and i only got it done because of some republican votes. tree times we tried -- three times we tried before we succeeded in passing marriage equality and then had to defend it on the ballot and became the first state in the union to defend it at the ballot. one of the things you learn as an executive is to never, ever, ever declare anyone who is not of your party's affiliation is

your enemy, you know? [applause] republicans aren't our enemies. they're our colleagues, they're our uncles, they're our aunts -- [laughter] they're the man or woman that comes if you have to call 931 for a para-- 911 for a paramedic. i mean, we're all citizens. i called everybody or in my legislature all the time because i never knew what the combination was going to be for the next tough vote that i needed to get done. and i could help them along the way with ideas that they had that actually served our common good, i was glad to go a little extra mile to do that. and we also had, we used to do bipartisan pizza night at the governor's residence. many of our republican members told me, you know what, governor? i've been in that house more in your first year than i was in four years of a republican governor of few own party. and that's why -- of my own party. and that's why you have those houses. my able staff mate who was in

charge of counting votes, said why do you invite senator so and so? senator so and so always votes against your stuff, he never says anything nice about you, and now he's in your house eating pizza. and i said, hey, man, it's just pepperoni. i mean, what's -- [laughter] what's it going to hurt? so i don't know that there's a magic way through it, but we do need to talk with each other again. and, hey, here's one -- third thing. i'm talking too long. but very smart woman named betty sue flowers who, like a ph.d. in mythology and the value of stories. and she helped me to the fact that the framework of solving problems is a very powerful american thing. and when we ask people who we may think are opposite, are political opposites for their ideas, it has a way of stripping bare that, the ideology sort of thinking in your feet stuff and -- dig in your feet stuff and -- >> have time for one more, governor. >> okay, one more.

>> thank you, governor o'malley. i'm the vp of college democrats here on campus. >> mr. vice president, very good to meet you. [laugher] >> as you probably know, there's been a sharp increase in hate crimes against transgender people, particularly transgender women of color. and i was wondering what you would do to increase protections for transgender people in our country. >> thank you. we, i just gave a talk on this in iowa. i wonder if it's online. a whole talk about the next horizons here. in our state we passed a, an anti-discrimination bill against transgender individuals. we passed it first in the city. i think in the city i became the first local jurisdiction to do it as mayor, and then we got it done in either the last or second to last session. and our state legislature. there's things we can do on training of police, there's things we can do in terms -- in other areas, in other aspects as

well. ultimately, the arc of our history always bends towards fuller respect of the freedom and the dignity of individuals, and i think there's a lot of, a lot of barriers that we still have to the work our way over and through when it comes to how we treat our neighbors who are transgender. so, okay. so that's it. so let me, let me say again thank you. if i made you miss class and it was a accuracy you didn't want -- a class you didn't want to attend, you're welcome. if it was a class you really wanted to attend, i apologize. let me point out two people here. sam, are you the organizer here, sam? this is sam. he has -- he got a great assignment. he left baltimore, and now he's in new hampshire. the weather's like this all year round, sam. it never gets colder than in this. [laughter] where are the sign-up things?

elsie is our field director, and i would love to stay in touch with you, i would love your help in this primary. do not believe that one person can't change the world. you have the ability to change the outcome of this race. i was up here years ago for a candidate that only had 1% name recognition, his name was gary hart, and was declared dead three times before rising up to make it a contest between the inevitable front runner that year, walter mondale, and the voice of a new generation. our party always looks to the future, and i need you guys. i don't have a ton of money, i can't pay you a salary, but by golly, i can give you a ranking commission no other campaign can offer. [laughter] it begins with you signing up on one of these so we can stay in touch. we're going out knocking on doors every weekend, we will be phone banking. and one thing you don't know about sam, i can tell you this because he used to work in the baltimore headquarters, he's a great guy, but if he doesn't sign up at least 20 new people

every day, he goes home at night and cries. i really need you for sam's sleep to, please,sign up. thank you guys for being here today. thanks a lot. [applause] >> all campaign long c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our web site at c-span.org. >> a few live events to tell you about. on c-span3 we'll get an update on began toon know -- guantanamo bay detainees. human rights organization hosts this event this morning at 9 a.m. eastern. and on c-span, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu will talk about u.s./israel relations. watch live coverage from the

center for american progress at 3 p.m. eastern. and here on c-span2, louisiana republican senator david vitter and state representative john bell edwards are running to be louisiana's next governor. we'll have live debate coverage at 8 p.m. eastern. >> last week the u.s. supreme court heard an oral argument on the use of race in the jury selection process in the foster v. chatman case. the court will decide whether it was unconstitutional to exclude african-americans from jury selection in the trial of timothy foster who is now on death row. the court will rule on the case later this term. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 148349, foster v. chatman. mr. bright. >> mr. chief justice and may it

please the court, the prosecutors in this case came to court on the morning of jury selection determined to strike all the black prospective jurors. >> mr. bright, maybe you could address first the question we raised on friday with respect to which court certiorari should be directed to. >> yes, your honor. we fire filed initially to the supreme court of georgia. and, of course, this source in sears v. upton had issued certiorari, this was in 2010, to the supreme court of georgia in a imsituation. similar situation. it appears to us from looking at this over the weekend that r.j. reynolds tobacco company v. durham county which the court cited in 1986, the court said that unless there was positive assurance that the decision was not a ruling on the merits, then the writ went to the state supreme court. and the georgia court, while it

has rules and do you statutes as own opinions that are not totally in harmony with one another, the rule nonetheless is that a certificate of probable cause -- which is what was denied in this case -- is to be granted if there is arguable merit to the case. >> do you think that affects the scope of our review? in other words, are we addressing just whether there's arguable merit to the claim, or are we addressing the claim on its own merits? >> i think what this court has done in all these cases is apply it versus -- or to look through to the last reasoned decision, and that would be the decision of the habeas corpus court. typically in georgia, the court rules an application is made for certificate of probable cause to the supreme court, and it is often denied summarily, as it was in this case. >> i really don't understand that. you say we would be reversing

the georgia supreme court, not the habeas court, right? and all that the georgia supreme court held that, is that there was no arguable basis for its accepting review. so if we reverse that decision, we tell the georgia supreme court you're wrong, there is an argue -- arguable basis for your accepting review. so we ought to remand to that court rearing them to accept review, it would seem to me. how can we reverse them on an issue they never considered? ..

>> you did in a case out of georgia. that was certiorari to the supreme court of georgia but it came up exactly the same posture of our case. >> is there an argument that the petition for certiorari could go to the trial court? our statute says ago to the highest court in which we view could have been had, i think is the statutory phrase, in which sounds like the georgia supreme court put on the other end as

justice scalia said, they generally directed their attention to the issues before us. i'm not sure to me that it's an option to go to the georgia trial court, or is that incorrect? >> what this court has said, both in the r.j. reynolds case and then that was filed in brady versus north carolina last year, 2015 case, this year in which there was an intermediate court decision denied by the north carolina supreme court. i would've offered back to 1960. they are wisconsin versus louisville where certiorari was to the police court in louisville, kentucky, because no court in kentucky could take the case because the fine was less than $20. i think these cases much more recent decided by the court 1986 and this year -- >> you're putting together to rules that you say we've established.

one is justice blackmun said, to end the confusion, the petition should be addressed to the supreme court. and then you said, we have cases. look through cases. that the supreme court has said just denied, nothing more than denied, we look back to the last reasoned decision. those are both decision of this court and that's what you're relying on. >> and they're not mutually exclusive. this court can look back through to the last reasoned decision and making its decision i in ths case tangibly that's what it should do, but at the same time the court opinions appear to us, on the quick research we did over the weekend on this, that r.j. reynolds and the subsequent case say that certiorari would issue to the georgia supreme court. we listed that way and then when the case was docketed, it was listed that the lower court was the superior court's.

what if the state supreme court wrote a short opinion and said we're not going to determine whether there was, in fact, the only which would determine is whether there's any arguable merit to this. then you say the whole issue of what was a correct application in batson is the issue that went to decide because i think in r.jr.j. reynolds i think that ts court law, yes. >> could ask a question about another preliminary issues before you get to the underlying question in the case. the superior court said on page 175 of the joint appendix, that the issue of a batson violation was not revealed will based on the doctrine of res judicata. and then the later said, and this is 192 of the joint appendix, that it will review a batson claim as to whether petitioner has shown any change in the facts sufficient to

overcome the res judicata bar. if you put those two together you could argue that the superior court decided only a question of state law, namely, whether the situation here with such that there could be review of the batson claim. what is your response to that? >> the state doesn't argue that. i think the reason for that is because the court said, we are moving -- the court is going to address step three of batson to edit said, fosters a batson claim is without merit. >> but is it a question of federal estate lust was not the petitioner has shown a change in tax sufficient overcome the rest judy codding or? page 192 language that justice alito quoted. is that a state law question or -- >> that's a state law question. into the court decided it but i point out -- >> if it's a state law question and to resolve it against you, then what do you have to argue?

>> no. in order to decide it, this is not like oklahoma where the court, the oklahoma court had to decide the federal question in order to decide whether it had s jurisdiction over the issue. this court held in ake do with the court has to decide if the issue, edited in this case the included cited the federal issue and found that the batson claim has no merit. so it is a decided the federal issue and there's no contest about that. >> explain to me why the federal issue was essential to its deciding the state rest judy codding issue. >> because they frame the question as being that it would look at the ake, scathing look at the batson versus kentucky claim. and that if there was merit to that claim then the court would grant rich on it. on the other hand, if it found that there was not merit on it

then -- >> you think it was sang by the there is rest judy codding or not depends on whether a new claim has any merit speak with i think -- >> that's very strange application of rest judy codding it seems to me. >> -- rest judy codding. i thought it was -- >> at george lutz is you can bring issue that's been litigated already before direct appeal in haiti as if there are -- >> right, even if it would produce a different result. >> at the facts are such that would produce a different result, right. >> does the court in your judgment do the -- it is a basically was going to do step three of the batson -- >> that's exactly what the court said, yes. >> so that's a ruling on the merits. >> i think the court said that batson claim is without merit. and that seems like a ruling on

the merits to me. >> i think it's that after redoing -- >> after considering these other facts. we think there were some legal errors made clear that yes, after considering these facts the court said that the claim was without merit. >> the court said that it would reach step three against on the basis of the new evidence presented, so they did it all over come and i guess we must take that as what happened. they did not apply a res judicata bar. >> no. i mean, in ake this court said when the resolution of the state procedure law question depends upon a federal constitutional ruling, the state law prong is not independent of the federal claim. and this court has jurisdiction. .com paid 75 of 47 united states. >> are you arguing that georgia

res judicata blog is this, if someone comes up with any new fact, the thinnest new fact, that is sufficient to wipe out the res judicata bar and allow the court to get to the merits of the claim? is that your argument? that's your understanding of georgia res judicata law? >> that's not my understanding. my understanding is the evidence has to be sufficient enough that the court does what he did in this case implementors of this issue. that's what happened. >> we really want you to get to the merits but why is that with justice scalia's question, why is that an issue of federal law? >> because the court decided the batson issue to decide the underlying state law issue. i think ake is pretty clear on this, and i commend it to the courts attention. since the state had raised this committee their opposition to

cert or in the brief is not breached before this cour courti think that's the deciding case. >> thanks. i think we are on the point. >> thank you very much. if i could just say what happened here was that the prosecutors had identified the african-americans by race, they get rated them against each other in case it came down to having to select a black juror. >> the prosecutors said the reason for concentrating on the black jurors was that you would inform them you would present a batson challenge and, therefore, it was necessary for them to see if there was a race-neutral ground for disqualifying that case. >> right. two answers to that, justice ginsburg. i mean, what the lawyers did here was the source of practice you for a long time in rome, georgia. they said the prosecutor always strikes all the blacks from the jury. it's been a historic practice. we think they're going to strike

all the blacks auditor in our case. but last year the supreme court decided batson v. kentucky and we asked the court not to let that happen in this case. now, of course, at the prosecutors going to avoid a batson challenge they could've not discriminated. that would've been the first thing but secondly with regard to the information that is collected here come it doesn't seem like it's information just to exercise strikes when they say, if it comes down to having to take an african-american ms. hardge or ms. garrett might be okay. and the district attorney himself said mayor lynn garrett has the most potential of the black prospective jurors. in other words, the blacks were taken out of the picture. they were taken and dealt with separately it and over the weekend the question ended on a friday. and it gets it all right, over the weekend you got a chance to

decide who you're going to strike. they knew exactly who they're going to strike because the jurors are listed in order. the state goes first edited excerpts the steps -- edited except skoucher, there's no going back, no back striking people here and there. they develop three strike lives. one of those strike this was a list headed definite no. these are the people absolutely not going to be on the jury. there are only six jurors listed on the list of definite no. in the first five are african-americans. the sixth as a juror who made clear during the blogger process should not impose the death penalty under any circumstances. a statement to striker for cosper to judge probably aired in not granting that strike. and even she ranked behind a black jurors in terms of the priorities that the prosecution had for striking student council at the time, mr. lanier said that they were not striking the

jurors because of race, they were striking because they were women. i guess three out of the four african-americans who were struck were women. how does that come that explanation has fallen out of the case. how does that kind of analysis -- >> he did except women so as well. if, bear with me just a moment. >> the court had not yet held that batson applies to -- >> the court had not held in geb that batson applied women but the court did say it could be used as a pretext, women, for strike on the basis of race. in this case the prosecutors struck three white church and then he struck the three black jurors, women, the three black women and the three white women.

the final -- >> mr. bright, mr. lanier answered yes when he asked when, during the trial when he was asked whether he had done, i don't know if it, no, it was on the motion for new trial hearing, whether you done the same extensive background check on all the jurors, white and black. did you find any evidence of that extensive black background research? >> no. what that's talking about, and investigators said this in his deposition, was the race coated colored lives, those first four list he had been the joint appendix in which the blacks are marked with a be and are highlighted in green with a marker up at the corner saying green designates black. >> so your understanding of that statement was that albeit only to an extensive search from the blacks? >> it's clear. he had prepared a list, note in

which he talked about just the black jurors in the case that i think the state concedes in its brief that the focus was on the black jurors. >> during the trial, did defense counsel, when he made his initial batson challenge comes not in the papers but at trial, epa can say that this was part and parcel of the prosecutors pattern? >> he didn't say that but i point is interesting thing up when they discussed the batson motion before trial, there was a suggestion that the whidbey a batson hearing. everybody knew what was going to happen but all the blacks would be struck and to have a hearing after that happened. but the defense have basically put their motion in writing and relied upon that throughout the jury selection. >> i was just surprised we did hear about this preparation for a batson hearing until the habeas.

>> the defense lawyers at trial did move for the prosecution's nose. the prosecution opposed the. they very strict and not giving up their notes. then when the prosecutor testified on the motion for new trial, h he did something i'd er seen although do before. he cut a bargain sort of what the judge the letter saying i will testify but only if i don't have to show them my notes. basic rules of evidence you testify and relied upon notes. the other side can see the notes. but here these notes were guarded until 2006 when we obtained them through a freedom of information or what they call open records act in georgia. >> the prosecutors said that, they said, we never wrote or authorized a relied on those notes. and she didn't call the prosecutors to test the veracity of that assertion. >> know, but all the prosecutor talked about with the color highlighted notes.

each prosecutor filed an affidavit which are in the joint appendix that 168. all they said was, we didn't highlight it in green and we didn't have anybody else to highlight the entry. in mr. lanier says, and unlike anything else to say beyond what i said at the batson hearing on the motion for new trial. the only thing he said is i didn't use those green highlighted list in choosing the jersey but, of course, that's just the first few pages. what was damning about this was not so much about but the definite no solicitor for misrepresentation to the trial court that ms. garrett, they wanted ms. garrett. that's what it'll trial court and the trial court relied upon that. a denying that batson motion, that they showed their openness to having -- mediscare was on the definite no list or choose what each of the strike lives. ms. garrett was never anyone to be on this jury. but they represented for the

court that because another african-american, shirley powell come was excused for cause or five african-americans in the start of the committee to start the jury but once said, turns i know someone in the family. she was asked used for cause and the prosecutor said, implied clearly that had it not been for that, that extra strike, that ms. garrett would have of that. at the same time, they are still arguing this both ways that they both wanted her into the water, they give 11 reasons for why ms. garrett would not be a good juror, that she is impudent and she does respect the court. but those things i would submit are not really valid in terms of the reasons, because the reasons they gave here, many were demonstrably false and not supported by the evidence, including reasons they gave

about ms. garrett. they were inconsistent and some were completely incredible, the applied to white church. some of these reasons apply to white jurors put the same characteristics as the african-americans who were struck. and unless it was so important under miller-el, they didn't question the jurors about the reasons for striking the. one crush would've clued up somebody's. and miller-el says that the future engage in any meaningful board here about whatever your reason is, is evidence suggesting that the explanation is a shame and a pretext spent mr. bright, i found some circuit courts who have a rule on appeal or on habeas which is if they can find one legitimate reason for striking a juror, that's enough to defeat a batson challenge. be believed that an appropriate

rule? do you believe passionately suggesting a different approach to the question? >> well, i can't, i would suggest it can't possibly be. because this court said in justice alito's opinion snyder versus louisiana, that were the real to strike which don't have been motivated in substantial part by race, that it could not be sustained. i would suggest to you it didn't even really say substantial because if this court as so many times is engaged in unceasing efforts to rent -- and race discrimination in the criminal courts, then strikes motivated by race cannot be tolerable. and, of course, as pointed out here in the amici, this is a serious problem, not just in this case but in other cases where people come to court with eric cantor reasons and just

read them all. that happened in this case where one of the reasons that was given was just taken verbatim, to put the reasons you were taken verbatim out of a reported case. so you don't have the reason for the lawyer in this case. he set my personal profits. it was his personal preference. it was a personal preference of some u.s. attorneys in mississippi who gave the reason and then was upheld on appeal by the fifth circuit. we would suggest that the standard is at least what snyder says, because when you have both come you can always have, as miller-el recognized -- >> in response to justice sotomayor's question, if the prosecutor argues a laundry list of reasons for striking the black juror and some of those are reasonable and some are implausible, how should the court approach that batson analysis? >> i think the court looks at which reasons are pretextual. the fact there is a laundry list suggests that the court should

scrutinize the reasons very carefully, should be suspect of the reasons. otherwise wit what the court is going to do is just simply encourage prosecutors or any party in the case, since batson applies to everyone, is going to encourage a party to just get as many reasons as possible and hope that one will be acceptable. >> don't you think this is a case-by-case thing? supposes there's one reason particular reason? like this individuals numerous prior felony convictions, and the prosecutor says in addition, and this person, he looked down at the floor in answering the questions and didn't seem to cause it didn't seem to understand some of the questions. so under a circumstance like that, couldn't the court say, there's one reason here that is clearly a justification for a peremptory strike? we don't have to determine whether there's evidence that the person was looking down at the floor. >> batson says, and the

subsequent cases say, you look at all relevant circumstances. it may be of all the circumstances that are there, then you would come to the conclusion that of those two reasons there was a valid reason. i would suggest where you have indeed shift back with your, i meethink we have an arsenal of smoking guns in this case spent a lot of the smoking guns were in the original decisions by the georgia courts. it seems to me you have to establish to reverse the georgia courts is that the new smoking gun, then all the rest were not enough to demonstrate a batson violation, the new smoking guns would tip the scale isn't that what the issue that the georgia courts decided? >> when the new smoking gun intelligence at the prosecutor misrepresented facts and give reasons that were absolutely false, demonstrably false reasons, and those are not clear before, but you have that now, i mean, that's insurance on the

feasibility of the reasons. it turns on the credibility of the prosecutor. prosecutor. >> all i am saying and you seem to be agreeing that it is not the overall batson judgment that's before us. but rather the judgment that the new evidence did not suffice to create a batson violation where none existed before. >> no. our position is that when you look at the new evidence with all the evidence at trial, that all relevant circumstances considered together, consuming a lot of these reasons we now know from the notes, we know from the notes that were mr. possessions with regard to these reasons. the georgia supreme court, just as an example, upheld a strike on ms. garrett on two bases. that she was a social worker and that her cousin had been arrested for drugs. she was not a social worker, and secondly, the prosecutor didn't find out until after trial about her cousin's arrest so it could have possibly been the reason for the strike.

>> are you saying in answer to justice scalia that when you had the notes, those notes cast doubt on some of the prosecutors justification in the first round? >> they do that and they shall misrepresentation and they show an over arching goal on separate out the african-american citizens treating to different, different and then putting them on this list of definite nos spin just make sure i understand all the notes in the prosecutor's files were new, is that right speak with new to this case, yes. or three people. it just evolved to prosecutors and investigators who put those together. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. i put there to important factors in this case when reviewing the entirety of the evidence.

one is petitioner bears the burden of establishing -- >> i'll ask it was will to address the surgery question first. >> and respectfully i disagree with petitioner's counsel on this issue. i believe norfolk and western railway versus hiles, which is this court opinion indicates were states that if there is an issue raised in the lower court and it is raised in the highest court, the georgia supreme court denies discretionary review, then it is for this court on surgery before the lower court spent i don't think this is under georgia law. it seems pretty grounded in the state of georgia yes and that is a pretty hot button issue underwriter in the state, federal courts in georgia but our position in those cases i think there's a case before this court on we hearing on that same

issue is the georgia statute of the georgia statute specifically says that is a discretionary appeal to the 1975 habeas corpus act made a discretionary appeal at the because the georgia supreme court was inundated with appeal after appeal. >> has the georgia supreme court ever said anything one way or the other as to whether it is discretion or not? >> in two other cases, they both stayed those as discretionary. but they have not answered a certified questions on that issue. could you give me the -- >> yes, your honor. 219 southeast and second 409. that's in 1975 case. >> are certified questions available in georgia quite good we certified the question to the georgia supreme court? >> i believe you can, your hon

honor. >> i look at the statute. the statute says in a a b. is the abs, that the georgia supreme court must review it. it says it must review it unless it's without merit. i forget the exact words. i was looking for them. do they state that? >> in state abs i think it's nine, 14, 15 q. the statute takes a habeas cases at other reviews and makes that just discretionary. >> i've been lucky at the wrong place. you hurt your brother hearsay, he quoted some words. i don't know what the exact words they were exactly what i read in this from a statute in georgia. and the georgia statute said, i just can't find in my book year, sorry. the georgia statute said they shall review the case and less it's totally without merit. something like that. does that ring a bell?

doesn't ring a bell, what i'm sending? >> it does ring a bell spit what are the exact words speak was i do not know the exact words speak the exact words are that a certificate of probable cause will be issued when there is article merit. >> yes, that's it spent badly that his role 36 of the georgia supreme court. >> i believe the statute was 12 those. >> is the word that the chief justice just read from georgia law govern this case was the answer is yes or no. >> no, i believe it's discretionary. >> what in your opinion is the georgia statute that says that those words you just held it cannot govern this case? >> i believe, and i'm sorely open to correction, 9-14-52 states that state abs is taken out of other appeals, which are normally directly appeals, or

prisoner appeals, at our discretionary. >> okay, thank you. >> i suppose that a court could have a discretion review but could provide by rul rule that,d exercise out our discretion we will grant any of these unless it's only wrong. -- patently wrong. ..

that they will exercise their discren in a certain way that they are insisting upon their discretion being a discretionary; is that correct? >> that is my understanding because this applies to not just obviously these cases but a multitude. >> i'm so confused. [laughter] the state process is different in the regular appeals process. on the regular appeals process each case is with discretion. >> certainly in a capital case it is a mandatory review. >> they have an internal rule that says we will take every case unless it has no merit,

right? >> i think the rule says we will take a case that has merit. so what would lend us to believe that they didn't look at the merit and say there was no arguable merit but they said we are too busy bee don't care if don't care if there is an arguable merit. >> i said i would never say that but they would say we looked at this case because they do have the record before them and we don't see the merit to take this case the program decision on the merit. there is no arguable merit. i think that there is the notes to the application but there has been if that makes it any clearer. >> and in your view in the door

just in court. >> it should have been granted to the state habeas corpus because of the discretionary review and because the court has said in michigan versus long if it is unclear it comes from the state paid he is ditka -- kbs court. >> this is being litigated in the 11th circuit, this precise issue? thank you for >> what issue is that? [laughter] >> it's the issue of what? >> it's whether the supreme court reveals in cases like this as discretionary or not. >> it's coming from federal court so we are dealing with

sort of a different scope of things in that regard. >> and the question is in both the georgia supreme court and circuit? >> i don't believe we have a case now in the court on that particular issue but i do the leave there is an issue. in the case where they've asked for the hearing. >> would this be appropriate to exercise discretion for the supreme court? >> of will be we would like an answer from the supreme court on that issue. i think the 11th circuit would like that as well. it would clear up the state and federal law for a number of things. >> [inaudible] certified questions do you know anything about the history of the request for certification? some states have such a process

but the supreme court rejects the question. >> i do not come in your honor. i apologize. >> but if there is not a discretionary review and it indicates is that are pending in the supreme court says it is discretionary review. >> is ultimately a question for us or the georgia supreme court? >> it's ultimately for the georgia supreme court with the state law is. >> [inaudible] >> okay unless other people -- okay. look, you have a lot of new information from these titles that suggest what the prosecutors are doing is looking at the african-american prospective jurors as a group that basically said we don't want any of these people come

here is as the one we want and we really have to take one. but the evidence suggests a singling out antithesis of the rule. so i'm just going to ask you isn't this a violation as clear as the court is ever going to see? >> the notes we have, they don't undermine any of the findings that were given by the prosecutor in his strikes. they can be interpreted in two ways in response to this court we don't know when we say this is why these highlights are there. there is a reasonable expectation. >> what is the reasonable explanation? >> for months prior to the trial as it was previously argued,

they had just come out and the former trial in this council files a motion in the says we are filing a challenge. two weeks prior to trial, he filed a motion and says there is a racial disparity in 179 jurists and that is the list of the 179. there is disparity of the prospective jurors on that list. he re- files that end so i would be more surprised quite frankly if there wasn't some sort of highlighting -- the >> the argument you're making is that the reason he highlighted inside and about all these different things was because he was preparing defense in case of the challenge? if that's correct but this argument made before the brief in this case? and

>> it was not. >> so. >> so if that had been his reason and is it come is a little surprising that he never thought of it when he didn't tell anybody? >> i would say that's the only one state and in his counsel. we relied throughout the state pbs and then after that he basically defended the findings. >> we have two arguments one he never thought to tell you until quite recently and the other it's hard to believe that is his real reason and then there's the second argument he had about 40 different reasons at least some of them could be valid. my grandson tells me i don't want to do my homework tonight because i'm just so tired. and i promised my friend i would play basketball. and besides that, there's a great program on television and besides that, i stomach is upset

that i won't eat spaghetti. he's giving me different reasons. but what do i think of those reasons? like one may be valid. >> correct. they may all be valid but not as strong as the first one. >> -- the point is he gave 40 different reasons and the fact that he gets 40 different reasons and many of them are self-contradictory and not applicable and are totally different that's what i use my grandchild's analogy for. and so i say would say my answer to my grandchild is look, you are not too tired to do your homework and any reasonable person would say no if you purpose to discriminate on the basis of race. tell me why i'm wrong. >> you have to look at the time to code this was done. and even throughout the transcript.

so in this case the prosecutor for the first time in history anybody has had to put strikes. >> it's wrong. if it comes down to having -- that seems to me to undercut. they've made a mistake. short of it was new. >> there is a laundry list but with regards to mr. lundy that was the investigator that said if we have to choose a jurists she might be the best one. >> [inaudible] >> the only person that was

asked about that was mr. lundy that said said he couldn't identify that list. i don't think that is a ranking of the jurors because when you look, they did score throughout. >> one of them was garrett. if we have to have one, let it be that he shows up on the definite no list. >> the people that did the investigation were the two prosecutors on the case for mr. lundy so if he says i didn't make that the list, it has to be one of the two prosecutors laid >> and they were not there on the day that it was struck.

but if that isn't his fault process i don't see that that gets you to the air or in the striking firm is garrett. >> it seems a false statement the reason that it's given, one of the reasons for garrett being struck is that he was arrested independent prosecutor doesn't know that at the time. he doesn't know until after that he was arrested. >> i don't think the record bears that out. the highlighted nodes and patricia wants to say those were used during the strikes in this

is the joint appendix, angela has written out the name in his notes where he says he wrote on things he knew prior to the strikes and what he knew about the individual jurors he wrote down as angela garrett as a cousin. >> didn't do habeas corpus accept that he didn't know the time of the trial? >> dot court credited the fact that mr. lundy advised the trial counsel. >> said that was his explanation for why the prosecutor didn't know about the prior arrest, direct? >> they corrected that as one of

the strikes mr. lundy -- >> he never credited, he never said that he knew about the arrest. >> mr. lanier testified to twice that he was aware at the time that he knew about -- >> that the prosecutor didn't. >> that mr. money or the prosecutor testified and said mr. lundy told me that, that is the joint appendix. >> didn't he also testified that has come to our attention during the trial of the case? >> it says on the transcript which i cannot explain to you and in contrast to the notes it is noted as she is because in prior to the jury selection unless that means, and i've read

it several times since then she's been dismissed from her job. again it is unclear. >> what about giving the reason for dismissing that she was close in age to the defendant? she was in his 30s and he was 18 or 19. >> when mr. lanier explains, her age is 34 and throughout the overall theme was we don't want younger jurors we are looking closer to the age of the victim. so maybe it's not the most articulate framing maybe it's more of a generational. the age i don't think was a make or break factor to start with underprivileged children a make or break factor that's also struck for the same purpose.

>> but wouldn't you agree in a lot of these cases you will have the supported justifications which they could support a valid preemptory strikes but if the questions for the court were did they support this preemptory strike in other words what is the prosecutor thinking isn't that the rule about the purposeful discrimination and independent survey doesn't so it doesn't matter that there might have been a bunch of valid reasons out there if it is clear the prosecutor is thinking about race. >> i think if the intent was based on race. >> that he could have had a different intent that would have supported a good preemptory strike and so the question of whether someone might have been properly struck by a prosecutor

isn't really the question the question is on the total amount of evidence before us including all these prosecutors what was going on with respect to each of these preemptory strikes and then you have to deal with not just it could have been this or that but you have all this information that's what it was what they wanted to get the black people off the jury. >> with the note shows is the contemporary instance taken at the time of trial are the reasons they struck them. there is no derogatory comments within those notes. >> are there reasons that are plausible but surely it's the judge but here's the testimony who is best able to judge whether the asserted reasons or not. it's hard for us to do that on

the cold record. it's harder but not impossible. >> justice scalia raises a good point in the cases but not where all the evidence of intentional discrimination was not for the judge at the time. >> and again i don't think that there's clear notes of racial discrimination. the strikes are sound. you wouldn't want mr. hood on the jury to guard the place of his race. so the reason he gives a laundry list like i said it may have been 1987 and you are putting out everything you can because you're not sure what you're supposed to do. >> the notes were not turned over earlier although one was brought up into motion for the new trial after the trial in 1987 and the prosecutor said i would give my notes if the defense counsel will do the

same. the defense counsel chose not to do so and it was raised on the court direct appeal and the courtroom found it didn't have to be turned over. when we got to the proceedings they had requested georgia law and i don't think there was any argument about it at that point. >> did you ask ms. garrett about any of the questions that troubled cover example her cousin's arrest. there is an assumption that she has a relationship with this cousin of you i have cousins i know have been arrested but i have no idea where they are in jail. i don't know that. so but he didn't ask any questions. doesn't that show pretax? i'm not going to acquire because she might get off the hook on that. >> i know the court doesn't ask

questions particularly of -- but for a number of issues i think that when you are asking questions, you don't necessarily care what the answer is because with regards to mr. hood, if it said yes it's not going to bother me a bit that you prosecuted my son -- >> in my mind it is decidedly different than murdering people were attacking them in the way this case was about i can imagine. why can't you imagine a father saying they were stealing hubcaps and he should have been punished. and he may well have but it's not a risk the record supports. >> it's a risk they didn't have to take. if you have somebody as i said he could have said that and admit that and never have been lying but in my mind i'm thinking he's going to get back there and say i don't know.

>> i want to ask you a different question before your time is up and i would like you to respond to the question that justice initially asked, and that is is there an independent state ground? and you are familiar with the record and i read on page 192 of the record the decision of in the first paragraph supports the view that you would like to hold i think that this is based upon the state matter and that is the paragraph read page 195 to 196 where the judge says the reason i reached that conclusion is because the notes and records submitted by the petitioner failed to demonstrate purposeful discrimination on the basis of their race. then he goes goes on to say in addition there's no good reason

now or then. the court finds that without language so if i read just that paragraph i would think the reason the judge found in your favor is he decided to claim in your favor. he didn't have to. he could have been on some other ground. but at worse, why isn't it ambiguous? and if it is ambiguous, why don't we take -- are to be required to assume the judge wins on the federal ground? i want to hear your response. >> it is the end of it. it's unclear.

the rest of it goes out the window. >> than the court gets to look at the issue and go beyond. they find we can review the evidence in new and then you are beyond the bar. >> that bar. >> i don't understand what you just said. and it is strong evidence the court feels like it has to go it has to look at this evidence and in this case it did then you

would be on the race to the bar. >> i think that is exactly how the decision is framed because it talks about claims that are not reviewed and it lists many claims and then it lists a bunch of the frames that are default it and then this is in a separate section and it's in a section with all the other claims that there are determinations being made about a. of the last sentences on the merit. the petitioner loses. >> which is where i would like it to be an independent grant. >> what do you make the statement as a preliminary matter this court notes that as it is stated by the respondent

of the following claims are not reviewed based on their race and the first one it lists does that suggest maybe the court had two reasons for what it did and it would fail even if it went on a. of the georgia law decides to be -- when the effects are developed. it's made on the fact is that did not absolutely miss at the time of the field of this case is essentially a different claim >> is essentially a different claim.

you have two minutes remaining. >> let me first say with regards to the justice quoted but it's just come to our attention that ms. garrett's cousin was arrested that was after it had been returned in this case and second if you look at the joint appendix page 56 and 57 where they give the reasons for striking there is no mention of her cousin whatsoever in their id there is no mentioning of that whatsoever so i don't think that it's six months later there is a motion for the new trial and now the prosecution is adding new reasons that it didn't give it. it's saying she was a social worker. saying her cousin was arrested. they said she's low income,

taking another thing out of the united states. but you can't add reasons on the perpetuity. she has to stand or fall on the reasons with regard their reasons with regard to the questions i just want to make one quick point on it because there is not much time but they are both teachers aides and they were literally right in the same neighborhood and she had kindergarten students, no questions. what kind of children do you have. they said familiarity with the neighborhood. it's 18 or 20 miles away. ms. duncan hurt schools to enter 50 yards away and she lived a half a mile from the school. both of them answered they were not familiar with the area.

then some more questions after those answers would have provided a difference but instead she's treated as a liar and accepted and served as a juror in the case and there are other examples with regards to the child if you have asked what about your child was arrested. $180 restitution and he went off to the navy and served country honorably and got an honorable discharge and came back.

the u.s. senate is about to begin its session on this tuesday.

in an hour lawmakers will turn to the defense programs and policy bill. a final passage vote scheduled for a plug-in:20. the house passed the bill last week after president obama v. code the war funding. now live to the senate floor. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal father, inspire our lawmakers to give you their best. striving to serve you and country, may they refuse to bring you the leftovers of their time, talents and trust. inspired by your providential movements in our world,