word. the constitution divides employment power between the president and senate. it expects senators to advise the president, not just rubberstamp his charges and it says advise and consent, not nominate and rubberstamp. in fact for most of the constitutional convention, founders of this country assigned the constitutional power to appoint judges exclusively to the senate and toward the end of the convention, it's part of the system of checks and balances it was then shared between the senate and the president. shortly after, william f clay noted this in his famous turne . whoever tends strictly to the constitution of the united states will readily observe that the president was an important one. the lesson has been the great check, the regulator and corrector, balance of this government.the role in this process is not secondary or comprised simply to a vote. it's been clearly sends a party

to advise as well as the power to consent.so i was, because of this, the history of our whole nation, the history and president of our whole nation, i'm disappointed to see reporters last week that the president is inclined to reject our overture to employee collaboration to head off a bitter fight. the presidents spokesman was way off base when he turned the idea of a bipartisan consultation as quote, a novel approach. and when he suggested the consultation before a supreme court nomination would somehow violate the constitution, that constitutional interpretation would draw a failing grade from any high school civics teacher in this country. other presidents have consulted with the senate, choosing supreme court nominee nominees with goodresults . recent history demonstrates the

tradition and value of consultation. actually, some of the best evidence of this comes from a good friend of mine on the republican side. back in 1993, 1994 when the last two vacancies rose in the supreme court, senator hatch had the same role i don't have as ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. president clinton worked with senator hatch and senate republicans to chart a course for the selection of a moderate consensus nomineeswho had substantial federal judiciary experience . in his book, a square peg which was very chilling for senator hatch's book but he tells how the president had the first opportunity of any democratic president in 26 years to nominate someone to the supreme court and describes how president clinton consulted with senator hatch and talked about these various potential

nominees he had. and senator hatch actually mentioned he brought up the two names of the people ultimately nominated. the proof is in the pudding. 96 senators voted in favor of justice ginsburg nomination, only three against. justice pryor received 87 affirmative votes, only nine against. and perhaps later mended president clinton for working with the republican minority at that time to find supreme court nominees all anyone could claim. that is a precedent which could be cited for decades before with others in our position. that is a role i want to follow. for example, senator arlen specter who i respect on both sides of the aisle acknowledges the value of a presidential consultation in advance of a nomination he has spoken about that. he tells of senator bohr then chairman of the judiciary committee with president herbert hoover and looking at

names and forcing on the list of names of president had before him, this person was vacant, that person turned out to be one of the giants of the supreme court, justice cardozo. now even the reagan administration consulted with democratic senatorsbefore they nominated robert bork . they were consulted, they didn't listen. and that nomination was voted down by the senate judiciary committee, was reported to the senate with a negative recommendation and was ultimately, the nomination was defeated by a vote of 42 to 58 with both republicans and democrats voting against judge bork. so consultation makes good sense. it makes good governing sense. it certainly makes good constitutional sense and i might add especially in this city it makes good political sense.

when a bipartisan consultation, the supreme court battle can be avoided. on the other hand, if the consultation is simply a phone call five minutes before fox news announces the president's choice, that doesn't really cut it. it's reported the supreme court the appointment process, the congressional research service said plainly quote, it is common practice for president as a matter of courtesy to consult with senate party leaders as well as with members of the senate judiciary committee before choosing a nominee. this is not a novel suggestion. this is has been done throughout the history of this nation. the president's choice unites and invigorates only a narrow window of his party.and it ends up dividing the american people.and so who should the president's nominee be? i'm not going to answer that

question today. i will however hope the president would seek confidential counsel with senate leaders. that's a setting where the discussion would be most helpful. i can say this, other conservative republican presidents have nominated justices to the court who have the kind of fidelity to the law that we all respect. for example, republicans in the mode of justice powell, he was nominated by president richard nixon. and you know what the vote was for the heavily democratic controlled senate? 89 to 1 to confirm. these are people who understand the importance of the court independence, they know how to be conservatives without being idle theological activists. they had a strong commitment to our shared constitutional values of individual liberties and equal protection. they demonstrated a record of commitment to equal rights, they should be independence and

populace that justice o'connor has so often shown so the choice of uniting or dividing the american people is a presidents. it's the presidents alone. none of us are asking to make the nomination, that's only up to the president. we are asking, let us do it in a manner that unites the country, that doesn't divide it. the president wants to incite the confirmation battle, then he can choose someone because of their ideology or record of activism with the expectation that there will be a political nomination and it will bring about political victories. but the united states supreme court should not be an arm of the republican party or the democratic party. it should be there for all of us. now, some activists reportedly consulting closely with presidential advisor karl rove,

if they convince the president to choose a divisive nominee or to tilt the ideological balance of the supreme court, they won't prevail without an extraordinarily difficult battle. and suppose they did prevail by one or two votes? what have they given us? now, while these partisans would celebrate the ideological takeover of the supreme court, the american people are going to be the losers. the legitimacy of the judiciary would have suffered a damaging blow that it would not soon recover. such a contest with self confirm that the supreme court is just another setting of partisan contests and partisan outreach. that would ripple all the way down through the federal courts and to the independence of the federal courts and the integrity of the federal courts here today with a severely damaged so that's why said preserving the strength with respect to the courts is important right now.

this is not the time and a vacancy of the supreme court is not the setting in which to deepen that nations ideologica divisions. our constitution establishes an independent federal judiciary . it's a bulwark of individual liberty and incursions or expenses by power of the political branches. independence of our federal courts has been called the crown jewel of our whole judicial system.but that independence is at grave risk with any president who seeks to pack the court with activists from either side of the political spectrum. of course there's temptation to do that. every president faces that temptation. john adams tried it. franklin roosevelt famous supreme court packings that was not possible because of the filibuster but no matter how great the temptation, one of

the worst takes a president could take would be to engineer the ideological takeover of the supreme court. if that wasn't successful, it would lead to decision-making based on politics and it would forever diminish our faith in our judicial system. all we're doing is trying to counsel the president to step back from the brink. in my lifetime there has never been a greater need for unifying pics on the supreme court. the independence of the federal judiciary is indivisible from our american ideals of justice for all. all americans no matter what our party affiliation should know that we should expect and accept nothing less, thank you. [applause] i've done many

elections in the course of my service but as many as i give some never go away. this is less intimidating in that i can wrap the whole thing up with a rendition of rocky top and bring the house down. elections such as this one, i feel like i should offer something from my unique experience as a united states senator. i've been a member of the united states judiciary committee since i was first elected to the senate . i probably served as chairman and address everything from immigration and criminal law to copyright enforcement and patent protection. today i'm chairman of the midi on intellectual programs and i'm sure if i were to discuss intellectual property on the endorsementstandard adopted in the case as recently , fuel your professions would be on the edge of their seats. most of you would go to sleep. given recent events i have decided instead to share some of my experiences with the judicial confirmation process.

because of judicial nominations, the senate judiciary committee is among the most partisan committees on capitol hill. it was not always this way. and today i would offer my thoughts on why the process has become so deeply political and what we can do to correct it. to me, the bottom line is this. the process has become overtly partisan. because too many people want their judges to behave like politicians. when senator george sutherland was nominated to the supreme court on september 5, 1922 the judiciary committee chairman went straight to the senate floor and after a few remarks made a motion to confirm the nomination. the senate then properly and unanimously did,that was all it took back then in 1922 . compare that to john lawson's experience on the us court of appeals. before he became the chief justice of the united states. he was originally appointed by

the first president bush. that nomination stalled and he was appointed again almost 10 years later by the second president bush. there is no doubt that this man was qualified for the work. everyone knows his resume so i won't repeat it here. nevertheless, before being confirmed to the seat he had two hearings that lasted approximately 100 excessive written questions from various senators, mostly democrats. this bruising effort to uncover his personal reviews was repeated again last month. something clearly has changed as is often the case, justice scalia hit it right on the nose as he explained in his concurrence on planned parenthood, nobody paid much heat to the supreme court until it's justices started acting like politicians. when he started acting like

politicians they started adding treated like politicians. they started when the nominations came to resemble political campaigns.this is not good for our courts and it's not good for our country. for me, the rules began to change with the nomination of judge robert bork in the court in 1987. some of your professors are young enough that they may not remember this debate. i was there and i still consider his treatment by the senate components that organized his group to be shameful. there's no doubt judge bork was controversial. and he did not shy from any controversy. those with us this year after john roberts domination,c-span ran footage of past confirmation hearings . judge bork's still stands out for the vigorous defense of humanity of his well reasoned position. and there is no doubt that he had a conservative judicial philosophy but that philosophy

was wrongly painted as outside of the mainstream of american justice. many made similar associations about justices scalia and thomas. i did not know what stream these critics were navigating because the constitution puts limits on congress authority under the commerce clause, then the constitution text modest religious displays in the public square and that the constitution does not create a nebulous and unqualified right to sexual liberty, mainstream views in the latter academy on the bench and in political life. with robert bork however, we work on the rubicon when it came to defending him against these unfair tenants. we did not anticipate the vigor with which his opponents sabotage the judicial process. we should have known better. all the way to the lyndon johnson primary, the democrats were then the majority party.

way to the left, like ronald reagan i used to be a democrat but in 1963, things began to change. i once said that i used to be a democrat but then i learned to read and write and i became a republican and everybody laughed but the next day we had every democrat on the state of utah as ignorant and unbelievable. i don't use that one anymore. in 1968 things began to change. the democratic coalition began to fracture and became increasingly difficult for democrats to achieve their mainly liberal policy goals the old-fashioned way. that is through the political process. as a result, today the liberal wing of the democratic party has become reliant on judges to do much of their legislating. there are many things they have been able to accomplish through the courts that they never could have achieved through the respective state and federal legislators.

judges have found the constitutional right to ban the flag. they banned the 10 commandments from courts and high school football games. they created the right to same-sex marriage and overturned a state constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage in federal court. they're proud of this achievement remains the decision of roe v wade which thencreated a can constitutional right of abortion . but while those may disagree with me, i'd like to say the great john party, one of the most observant constitutional scholars in history of our country. in response to row, he said he can certain opinion quote, lacks even tolerable support in the constitutional text. history or any other appropriate source of constitutional doctrine. he concluded that it is not constitutional law or rather not constitutional law and gives no sense of an obligation to try to be.

and quid pro quo abortion elements have said the same thing. john hardy was no conservative. he was a liberal defender of the war on court. as a associate he assisted florida in the case of getty and v wade and anthony lewis's famousquote . he advocated liberalization of the worst loss. as he and many others understood, as constitutional law, it remains a train wreck. given this political reliance on the courts, it is no surprise that a political standard has now been applied to do judicial nominees. nominee has become is a willingness to deliver goods instead of steadfast judgment and moderation. not surprisingly, on demand to know the nominee's views on partisan issues. this process began really with judge bork.it contended with

the nomination of clarence thomas where his opponents even inquired into the practices of the church at which he worked. all this came to a head with the filibuster of president bush's circuit court nominees. with that effort, the judges selection of the judicial process has led some to cry that it shames the rules of the game. the result was to filibuster against 10 qualified nominees and service challenge to the constitutions powers. early in the first term, conservative strategy was developed by my colleague from new york, senator schumer along with a member of law professors and activists. through a series of hearings, senator schumer determined it was not sufficient to ask on a nominees qualifications were. rather, as senator morse determined first for the nominees of that hearing, senators need to know what the

nominees use our. they need to know how person would approach a case as a man or a woman, or as a person with a particular background. presumably, the nominee with a more favorable reading to the americans with disabilities at if she had worked with disabled children would be favorable to that. and if obviously a qualified nominee failed to guide your diebold these views he would become farther from a vote. and the democrats left the majority in 2002, these potential no votes turned into filibusters. these filibusters of majority supported nominees were unprecedented. there was only one issue in the whole history of the supreme court, the whole history of the federal judiciary where the confirmation was filibustered and that was the florida state but i chatted with the leader of the fight for republicans, his name was senator robert

griffin, the author of the brandon griffin bill, a very important labor law who said they didn't want to filibuster. they had to vote for the court so there was no reason to filibuster. this is among 10 qualified people. the intent to justify an politicized judiciary. it would have given the senate unheard of power over nominations. because the founders thought that judges were primarily law enforcers rather than lawmakers. it was appropriate that the president had the lead role in their appointment. likewise, it was thought to be appropriate that those committed to politicizing the judiciary would attempt to reassign the primary role in the department of judges to the lawmaking branch. in my opinion, this campaign was not only constitutionally questionable, it was misguided

and misleading. and it would prevent either party to do this. first, what exactly will a person deeply held personal views show us about his or her judging question mark for example, justice scalia is no doubt deeply opposed to abortion as a moral and political matter. but justice scalia would never conclude that a statute to permit abortion violates the constitution. his use only matter if the nominee believes in giving those views of life through constitutional interpretation. it must be difficult to go through life and think that everything your friends happen to be is good is also protected by the constitution. it also violates our separation of promise. activism, judicial activism is wrong whether it comes from the left or whether it comes from the right. and the extreme activist judges

went to enact their ideas with the laws unabated. we got to be careful of that. this comes to my second point. we should be asking serious questions of judicial nominees. it is not enough to concur that he or she had a distinguished career. at the same time however, a senator is not a rubberstamp if he or she refuses to inquire about personal views.the proper question is, what the nominee thinks of the judicial role in the democratic republic. the question is whether the nominee sees courts as the vanguard of social change within our constitutional system. a senator does not act as a rubberstamp by refusing to ask specific questions about future cases, possible cases or policies.whether he or she demonstrates respect for the judicial role by refraining from asking those. which is why judge roberts

fulfillment was so remarkable. he is a judicial conservative. the president was wise to nominate him because in light of us all of the importance of judicial modesty. judges do not have a constitutional warrant to engage in wholesale social and political reform whether from the left or from the right. a duty assigned by them by the people to interpret the law with fidelity to its original meaning. the importance of judicial modesty was understated with the voting rights act of judge roberts. senator kennedy and i have been calling on the judicial committee over the past 29 years and i have to say, when he laid into judge roberts on the voting rights act he was way off the mark and revealed real difference between

liberals and conservatives on the role of judges in our democracy. here's the bottom line on the voting rights act. there was not one member of the united states senate who would oppose reauthorization of the voting rights act. in 1982 the voting rights act was up reauthorization. by the way, that time i was the chairman of the judiciary committee on the constitution. the issues over whether or not we should extend the voting rights act which i consider to be themost important civil rights bill in history . it franchise african-americans. in fact, the reagan administration with john roberts worked as a young attorney at that time, they advocated extending it without change for 25 years. the debate was over whether we should amend section 2 of this act. section 5 was noted for effects test. section 5 applied to the states that had historically discriminated against

african-americans. section 2 applied to all the states. and what they wanted to do was apply the test which some have said if the effects of what happened looked like discrimination, even if there was no intention to discriminate, then it's discrimination. and they wanted to apply that to all the states. in section 2. well, we know that there are many existing rules such as that large elections and multi- districts that proves obstacles to minority candidates. those election rules will neutral on their face and they were enacted with the intention of diluting minority representation. but they never had the effect of doing those so the argument was we should letthe effect stay in there so courts , before we go to that and we are eventually presented with a classic caseof statutory interpretation .when congress wrote the voting rights act, didn't intend to ban

intentional discrimination only or also any voting scheme that would have had the effect of diluting minority votes question mark the effect of diluting minority votes. the court concluded in the famous bill versus bolton case that plaintiffs who challenged these teams must prove intentional discrimination. the effort to amend section 2 of the voting rights act was an attempt then to overturn the decision with the interpretation in the defaulted case. i eventually supported the voting rights act, i believe that this amendment to section 2 was a serious mistake, i believe that at the time. changing these rules might result in more minority representatives but it was not necessarily going to make it better my minority representation. i lost.

but when the vote came up for a boat vote, i voted for it. i believed that it ought to be the most important civil rights act in history. this added up for a few reasons. when you hear that the other nominees oppose civil rights, they oppose women's rights i think it's important to take these claims with a teaspoon of salt. there's the agreement on fundamental civil rights in this country. the agreement.violence against women act which i helped to write and which i am a cosponsor of. it first became law in 1994, was just reauthorized in the senate bind unanimously. not one person was against it. there were objections to it on the judiciary committee which include conservative members. second, this race is the importance of judicial modesty in constitutional cases.

majority of congress included the court on his interpretation of the voting acts right wrong, it clarified it through ordinary legislation.but what do you do when the court gets it wrong in a constitutional case? for example, i firmly believe that due to a vast majority of polling in the house and senate, the court did get it wrong in texas b johnson when it concluded that there was a here for two unknown first amendment rights to desecrate the american flag. you have to correct that decision, you must first have to amend the constitution. even 48 states had anti-flag desecration amendments. that is why it was so critical that judges have a dual respect for the traditional constitutional understanding of the american people. some believe that the supreme court should be the final arbiter of our most important total decision. in their eyes, the court is not

a modest case but the super legislator. apparently, important decisions must be taken out of the hands of the people's representatives. as a legislator, i find this insulting. i also think it is out of step with our own history as a nation. the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the americans with disabilities act, a lot of which i've had a lot to do it. let's look at more amendments. ronald reagan's economy and entrepreneurship.the proclamation of prosecution of world war i, world war ii, the cold war and now the war on terror. all of these landmark events advanced the cause of liberty and equality and incurred as a result of the absence of popularly elected officials. a limited judiciary will not undermine our founding commitment to liberty and equality. rather it will give americans the room to give life to those

commitments through their elected representatives which haven't forgotten the simple truth of the founder, something most of you probably learned in high school civics classes. the legislature makes the law, the judiciary is supposed to interpret it and when interpreting it, it should do so with a modesty appropriate to to the judicial role. quoting the philosopher montesquieu, alexander hamilton explained in the federalist papers that there is no liberty if the power of judging me not separated from legislator and executive powers. we lost sight of this simple truth. today the judiciary is seen another bite at the political apple after losing in the federal legislature, even state legislatures. after all our disagreements, all senators agree that our work on nominations is one of

our most important works. the right question to ask nominee's odor is not what their views are on the issues. the right question is how they view the judicial role in our democratic system and process. john roberts had the right answer. he does not represent groups. he represents the law. an insightful exchange he explained this is why judges where black. they're supposed to leave their personal and subjective views, their beliefs at the courthouse door. otherwise they get the scale on the scale of justice. justice roberts was right to refuse to discuss his views on cases that might come before the court did in doing so he stood by the test laid out by none other than ruth bader ginsburg in her confirmation hearings. she said quote, a judge sworn to decide and offer no forecast, no hints, and showing

not only disregard to the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. after his confirmation, after roberts confirmation, justice ginsburg stood firm. she went on to quote, judge roberts was unquestionably right. my role was i will not answer a question that attempts to project how i will rule on the case that might come before the court. we will have to see whether now justice roberts example is a lasting one. it's going to be our chief justice for a long time it appears. with nominees and judges learn from his understanding of the constitution? and will senators learn from this testimony that there are proper andimproper inquiries of judicial nominees . we are about to find out why quickly. because already the senate is ready to take up the harriet miers nomination in just a few

weeks. already some senators on both sides of the aisle are eager to determine her personal views. i will be satisfied to learn that she will take a modest approach to the role of our elected judges in this country and in our democracy.again, i want to thank you for having me be with you today. let these judges that i have just spoken about, i am certain i'm in the minority about what i've said here today. i'm sure i will be followed in this series by many scholars more distinguished than myself and i'm happy that the students here will be able to benefit from their remarks over the years. and while i'm sure that some of you have different disagreed with what i had to say and we will share these disagreements in a few minutes, i do know this for my service over the years as a senator, the american people have a wisdom that should not be disregarded in constitutional

interpretation. and we do disservice to our political life if we narrow these traditional views of our understandings of constitutional rights. thanks so much, it's great to be with you. [applause] >> the next two speeches in our supreme court special include minority leader harry reid, then minority leader reread, senator in 2005 defending the use of the filibuster and saying the senate has no constitutional obligation to vote on the president nominees. where going to show you another speech, this one by mitch mcconnell as minority leader in 2008, july of that year saying senate democrats want to confirm more bush nominees before the presidents leaves office. david hawkins, here we have two speeches that seem at least somewhat at odds with what

those two leadersare saying today. what was different back then and what does this tell us about the process as a whole question mark . >> what was different is that each of these senators was, they had the word minority in front of his title, now it's majority and the other one had majority in front of the title and now it's minority and what makes it so dramatic is, what it shows is that in the last 30 years, really since the bork era which was where these wonderful things began, ideology has become important and divided government has become less positive and the appearance of a divided government, each judicial confirmation war is going to be fought to the death. the 2005 speech, when senator reid is speaking here, this is at a time when senator fritz who was then the republican

from tennessee was threatening for the first time the so-called nuclear option what was essentially a parliamentary maneuver to take away the right of the minority to filibuster judges. senator reid was opposed to that, turns out several years later it was senator reid actually engineered this exact same nuclear option that he fought so hard against. in the 2005 case, the nuclear option was diffused at the last moment when the so-called gang of 14, seven senators from each party came together and said we are going to refuse to join filibusters of judges from either party, of either president choosing so long as they are perceived as in the mainstream. that deal held together for only a few years and by the time president obama came to power and harry reid had the chance, was frustrated by obama's inability to get judges on the secondary court, the court of appeals, that gang of

14 deals and hold and harry reid got his way let's take a look at those two speeches. i want to remind you all the video we're showing you on our supreme court special available at c-span.org. here are the speeches fromharry reid and mitch mcconnell . >> i've addressed the senate on several occasions to what i believe is setting up restraint about senate history and the rules of this body. but frankly i'd much rather address wages and health care costs, bring down gas prices, talk about education, the spiraling deficits we have with the majority has decided we will spend this week and next week or at least part of next week talking about judges who i believe mister president are not in the mainstream of american jurisprudence. i'm happy to engage in this debate , i would rather not. i do want the debate to be accurate. for example, my good friends the distinguished republican leader issued a statement last

friday which he called the filibuster procedural gimmick. i took the time yesterday to correct that assertion. the studying the record what gimmick means. the dictionary defines it as a schema, a new scheme , indicate that certainly the filibuster was everything but that. it's not a gimmick. it's been part of our nation's history for two centuries. it's one of the vital checks and balances established by our visionary founding fathers. it's not a gimmick. also, some republicans have stated that, have stated improperly the use of the filibuster. they have said time and again that the seat of a handful of judicial nominees is unprecedented.

mister president in fact hundreds of judicial nominees in american history have been rejected by the senate, many by filibuster. there have been of course the most notable, the nomination of abe fordyce, the chief justice of the united states. he was successfully filibustered in 1968. here mister president is the washington post, same byline as i picked up this morning to read my newspaper from many years ago. first sentence, with full dress republican led filibuster broke out in the senate yesterday against the nomination of justice abe fortis for chief justice of the united states. a full dress republican led filibuster. we've had filibusters. that's what's been disappointing to me with some of my colleagues in saying there has not been filibuster, there has been. during the clinton

administration, more than 60 judicial nominees were balled up in the judiciary committee and never received for vote. of course as indicated by my distinguished friend republican leader, during that period of time democrats were complaining about what was going on saying there should have been hearings in the senate. and even came to the floor and these were accurate quotes of majority leaders saying let's have some votes.let's have some boats on these people. mister president, we never said we would break rules to change rules. to change the rules in the senate can be done by a simple majority. it can only be done if there's extended debate by 67 votes so i don't at all say that the statements made by the republican leader were wrong about our wanting a vote and we were disturbed that their work votes but we never ever suggested that the rules should

be broken. but in addition to the so-called pocket filibusters, call them whatever you want, the i think 69 nominations never made it out of the rest of the building come out of the judiciary committee. but in addition to those performances, republicans engaged in explicit filibusters on the floor against a number of clinton judges and they did get out of committee. and they defeated a number of president clinton's executive branch appointments by filibuster. it's the same advise and consent clause and that's why republican filibuster surgeon general henry foster, it was constitutional. the democratic filibuster of the fifth circuit nominee priscilla arms, constitutional and why wouldn't the same apply to priscilla owens? the public and argument doesn't add up. but i would say this. to my friend the presiding officer.

i said let's not dwell on what went on in the clinton administration. let's not dwell on what went on in the four years that president bush has been president. i'msure there's plenty of blame to go around . as we look back, i'm not sure and i'm difficult to say this but i say it. i'm not sure either was handled properly. i know it wasn't right to simply bury 69 nominations and in hindsight, maybe we could have done these 10 a little differently. but the american people are tired of what we are doing. tired of this constant fighting going on. what's going to take place? if this continues? we will have a vote sometime next week mark it will be a close vote of course as we only need sixrepublicans . the presiding officer was

formerly chairman of the appropriations committee, it's very difficult at best to get appropriations bills passed. most everything around here is done by unanimous consent. things won't work as well as they could have. we need to avoid this. we're all legislators.but sadly now, the president of the united states has joined the fray and become the latest to rewrite the constitution and reinvent reality. speaking to fellow republicans on tuesday night, two days ago, he said the senate and i quote as a duty to properly consider each nominee on the senate floor, discuss and debate the qualifications and give them an up-and-down boat they deserve. every one of the 10 he speaks of have had votes. every one of them. right here on the senate floor people walked down to these two tables and a name was called and they voted. and referring to the president doing to whom the radical right

you see within the reach the destruction of america's mainstream values certainly not duty to the tenants of our constitution or the american people were waiting for progress and promise, not partisanship and petty debates. the duty of the united states senators set forth in the constitution of the united states, nowhere in that document does it say that senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. it says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the senate. that's different from saying every nominee received the boat. i repeat, all these about which we are concerned, i'm sorry, including priscilla owens have had a vote right here. the fact was evenacknowledged by the majority leaders that focus not required. senator byrd asked for majority leader right here, senator byrd was right here and the majority leader was here last week .

we asked the majority leader if the constitution according to each nominee and up or down vote on the senate floor. the answer was no. and the answer was no. the language is not there, that's what the senator said and he's correct. the president should read the same copy that senator frist had memorized. it was clear the president misunderstands the meaning of the advice and consent clause. the word advise means advice. president clinton consulted extensively with committee chairman hatch and as a result of that we have ruth bader ginsburg and stephen burns in the supreme court, both fine justices. in contrast, this president has never saw or heeded the advice of the senate and now he demands our consent. that's not how america works, the senate is not a rubberstamp of the executive branch. rather we are the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. today in the face of president

bush's power grab, that's more important than ever. republicans want one-party rule, the senate is the last place where the president and his republican colleagues can't have it all and now president bush wants our system of checks and balances to ensure that he does get it all. that check on his power is the right to extended debate. every senator can stand on behalf of the people who sent them here and say their piece. in the sense 200+ years of history, this has been done hundreds and hundreds of times, stand up to popular presidents, to unpopular presidents, presidents area with power to block legislation artful to american workers. in the eyes of the senator and yes, even to eject presidential nomination. even judicial nominations. >> this is the one year anniversary of the nomination of robert conrad to be a member of the court circuit. when this congress began, the majority leader and i agreed that partisanship in the judicial nominations process was unhealthy and we said this

congress would be different. but los angeles times and washington post acknowledged the president did his part to get the process off to a good start back at the beginning of this congress. they and many others complemented his good faith and not resubmitting circuit court nominees who some of our democratic colleagues did not like. the majority leader himself said how much he appreciated the president's good faith. he said, i personally want the record to reflect that i appreciate the president not sending back for names that were really controversial. the majority leader also said he and his colleagues have an obligation to reciprocate and treat circuit court nominees fairly. he said i think we have to reciprocate in a way that is appropriate and were going to try to do that by looking at these nominees as quickly as we can. so the question is, have the

democrats treated these nominees fairly? have they in fact reciprocated? let's look at the facts. this president in his final two years of office and the senate democrats of course hope to recapture the white house. obviously there's a partisan incentive not to confirm his judicial nominees. this is madam president of course human nature but the situation is not new. president bush is not the first president to be in his final two years of office when the opposite political party controlled the senate and he will not be the last. even with lame duck president there is a historical standards of fairness as to confirming additional nominees, especially circuit court nominees. the majority leader and i agree this senate should meet that standard. the average number of circuit

court confirmations in this situation is 17, president clinton had 15, the senate has confirmed only 10 circuit court nominees. what happened? unfortunately, old habits are hard to break. in my opinion, democrats on the judiciary committee found it hard not to play politics. it started with the renomination of judge leslie stafford, jeff judge stafford was a distinguished state cour judge and an iraq war veteran , moreover he was on the committee democrats had already approved unanimously to the district court so at the beginning of this congress when the president tried yet again to fill a vacancy on the ticket, there existed for his entire presidency he did not resubmit a nominee who the democrats opposed and said he quite reasonably nominated someone whom committee democrats had alreadyapproved , leslie stafford.

how did the judiciary committee democrats respond? with one exception they did a total about-face and actually tried to filibuster judge stafford's nomination. unfortunately judge stafford isn't the only consensus nominee who became quote, controversial. john robert conrad is the chief judge of the federal district court in north carolina, the senate has alreadyapproved in two important positions not once but twice . first as the chief federal law enforcement officer in north carolina and then to a lifetime position. on the federal district court. in addition, the ada gave judge conrad's highest rating unanimously well-qualified and former attorney general janet reno called him an excellent prosecutor and said he was impressed with his judgments and his knowledge of the law. again, to resolve the dispute this time over a court circuit seat, president bush did not resubmit a nominee who senate democrats opposed.

as for judge stafford, he nominated someone who they had already approved, judge robert conrad. well, guess what has happened. nothing. has happened. as of today judge conrad has been sitting in the committee for 365 days, one full year without a hearing even though he meets all the chairman's criteria, has the highest possible aba rating, has strong home state support and would fill a judicial emergency. what is the result of all this? while judge conrad writes in committee the circuit court to which heis nominated is over 25 percent vacant . over one fourth of its seats are empty. it's chief judge states that to keep up with its work the court must rely heavily on district

court judges and in short, it is robbing peter to pay paul. it goes without saying she said that having to use visiting judges puts a strain on our circuit and in particular it forces the circuits district judges to perform double duty. situation on the fourth circuit is so bad that the aba has made the crisis on the court circuit lead story. in his most recent addition of its professional journal, it's on the cover page. now, my friend majority leader comes to the floor this morning and essentially says judges are important. and no one cares about them. given the crisis in the fourth circuit, a crisis that is so bad, the ada is highlighting it i can't imagine he would suggest such a thing. i'm sure the millions of citizens of the court circuit don't think having their federal appellate court over 25 percent vacant doesn't matter. i'm sure they care very much about that.

but evidently that's what the majority leader believes and apparently he's not the only one in his conference feels that way given the lack of action. can he refuses to move judge robert conrad's nomination for any other pending court nominees. radical democrats do not support ron rosenstein's nomination to the fourth circuit which is supported by the washington post because he doing too good a job as us attorney. he has the support of his sender is one democrat and one republican after he was nominated he would move him as long as there was time to do so.

specifically, he stated we have already said once the paperwork on president bush's nomination to the circuit is completed, if there is sufficient time i hope to move his nomination. the germans conditions are met with respect to judge konrad's nomination. the paperwork has been ready for a month and it's only july 17. last time i looked there were 12 months in a year. it's july 17. clearly we have time to confirm him but no action on this nomination. my democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called rule under which the senate supposedly stopped confirming judges in the presidential election year. i'm concerned that this rule that doesn't exist and has been researched thoroughly and there

is no such rule. the exception than the rule that doesn't exist as an excuse for our colleagues to run off the clock on the qualified nominees to fill vacancies. no party is without blame in the confirmation process that what is going on now or more accurately what is not going on is yet another step backward in politicizing the process we had all hoped we would get beyond. it's the american people especially those in the states that make up the circuit who are suffering the consequences and are i yield the floor. hispanic final word from the guest of roll call has seen over the last couple of hours the whole confirmation process in particular is producing back and forth on the issue.

what is your thought prediction for the merrick garland process going forward and how do you see the next administration in the senate as well? cynic i think that it has been tested pretty solidly for the judge merrick garland. the majority leader mitch mcconnelmajority leader mitchmcw will the republican senate as long as he is in charge have a hearing on the merrick garland or vote on the merrick garland. at one point there seemed to briefly thbriefly the sense thae talked about not doing it before the presidential election and there were a brief rhetorical window they said maybe after if we lose we would be happy to see to the judge on the supreme court and of senator mcconnell now says no way to that as well. he's a practical man. senator mcconnell is more a

practical leader than ideological and concludes that going back on his traditions is in his party's best political interest. but i think that is unlikely. in the next administration will depend if we have a president in one party or another or whether they are aligned. i think one of the things you are reminded of when you watch this footage is that it's always the senator senators or the pren the political losing end of the debate that says let's reform ourselves and behave better in the future and it's always the folks on the losing side that lose the power of leverage that has been developed. >> we appreciate you joining us and reading your blog and of course folks can follow you that rollcall.com. thanks so much. we will wrap up with a couple of comments by then senator barack obama on the supreme court

nomination at the speech from senator obama with his thoughts on how the white house ought to handle the supreme court nomination in the future. >> first of all let me congratulate senator specter and leahy are moving the process confirming the nomination of judge roberts along with such civility that i think speaks well of the senate. let me also say that i remain distressed that the white house during the confirmation process which overall went smoothly failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgmenajudgment with respect te nomination. this white house continues to

stymie efforts on the part of the senate to do its job and i would hope that with the next nominee that comes up for the supremsupreme court at the white recognizes in fact it is its duty not just for the senate but the american people to make sure that we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee that comes before us. the decision hasn't been an easy one for me to make. i've not only argued cases before the appellate courts but for ten years was a member of the university of chicago law school and taught courses in constitutional law. part is to maintain the sense of

collegiality of those that hold different views one and genders respect and it isn't the potential outcome of legal scholar arrives at but rather the intellectual honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision. based on the study of his resu resume, conduct during the hearing and conversation i had with him in the afternoon, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind judge roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. moreover he seems to have the temperament that makes for a good judge. he is humble and personally decent and appears to be respectable of different points of view and it's clear to me

that judge roberts clearly loves the law and he couldn't have achieved his record as an advocate before the supreme court without a passion for the law and it became apparent to me in the conversation that he does in fact deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal courts. a certain modesty and reading statutes and the respect for procedural regularity and impartiality presiding over our adversarial systems. these make me want to vote for judge roberts. the problem that i face that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues both those that are voting for mr. roberts and those that are voting against

mr. roberts is that while adherence to the rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before the court, so both scalia and ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases, what matters on the supreme court are the 5% of cases that are truly difficult. in those cases, adherence to precedent an standard rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. the last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values. values. one's core concerns. once broad perspective on how the world works and on the depth of one's empathy and those 5% of

hard cases and the constitutional text will not be directly on point. the language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. the legal process alone will not lead you to the rule of and the decisions about whether or not affirmative action are appropriate for the response of history of discrimination in the country or whether or not the general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control the production. or whether the commerce clause empowers them to seek the issues of national concern that they relate to what is easily defined as interstate commerce. whether a person that is disabled has the right to the accommodated so that they can

work alongside those who are nondisabled. the critical ingredient is supplied by what's in the judge's heart. i talked to judge roberts about this and he confessed to not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper feelings. feelings. that is and how he's trained. he did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed it as lowering the playing field between the strong and the weak. i was impressed with that statement because i view the law in much the same way. when i examined the judge's records and history of public service, it is my personal

estimation -- he is far more hee often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the week. he's worked in the white house and the solicitor general's office. he seems to have consistently sided with those who are dismissive of the efforts to eradicate the remnants of the racial discrimination in the political process. and in the same positions he seemed dismissive of the concerns that every woman knows is harder to make it in this world and the economy when you were a woman rather than a man. i want to take judge robert at his word that he doesn't like bullies in pcs the law int and e court as a vase of evening the playing field between the strong and weak. but given the gravity of the position to which undoubtedly

the gravity of the decision that he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court i ultimately have to give weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy to those in power and the assuring words that he provided me in the meeting. at the bottom linthe bottom line voting against john roberts nomination. i do so with considerable reticence. i hope i'm wrong. i hope that it is proven unjustified and that judge roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal finger but also someone that upholds the court's historic role on the majority and places of thin placesof the executive e

legislative branch. i hope that he will recognize who the week and the strong are in our society and that jurisprudence is one that stands out for all ideological stripes. which leads me to conclude with one more comment about the confirmation progress. in some statements that were made by the largely democratic advocacy groups. i'm deeply admiring of the work and the thoughts that the ranking member has put in to making the decision. the knee-jerk but i consider to be unfair to talk on the motiv

motives. both have fallen victim to this kind of pressure. we would acknowledge the same unyielding and unbending dogmatic approach to the judicial confirmation had in large part been responsible. >> what i would like to see if all of us recognize as we move forward to the next nominee. the supreme court they are difficult issues. that's why they get up to the supreme court. the issues facing the court or

black-and-white. and the advocacy groups that have a legitimate and a profound interest in the decisions made by the court that tried to make certain that their advocacy reflects the complexity and don't resort to the broad attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrain each and every senator in the chamber for making sure that they are voting on the basis of conscience. at an impasse between the white house, democrats or republicans watched the past years. if you missed any of the program you can visit the video library on the website c-span.org

tonight on c-span the supreme court cases that shaped the history come to life with the c-span series for the supreme

court's decisions or 12 part series explores real life stories and constitutional dramas behind the most significant decisions in history. john marshall and mulberry versus madison say this is different. the constitution is a political document that sets up political structure but it's also the law and we have the courts tell what it means and that is fine on the other branches. >> it is the ultimate presidential case. it's exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those in law traverses the supreme court they said it should make the decisions about the debate. tonight we will look at the case that helped define the limits of the right to free speech particularly during wartime creating the clear and present danger.

next the turkish president discusses the future challenges this country faces including terrorist attacks, the fury and the refugee crisis in relations with iran. he also talked about his views on freedom of the press. held at the brookings institution, this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> afternoon everybody. welcome to brookings and welcome to our statesmen form. our speaker and our guest of honor, president of erdogan is in washington at the invitation of president obama to participate in the nuclear security summit. president erdogan was kind enough to be with us at brookings this afternoon because it is part of our tradition and part of our mission to invite world leaders to address the issues of the day and it's a

particular pleasure the first lady of turkey would be with us once again as she was ba in 2013. these discussions are intended to be in the spirit of informing the global public and promoting stability of the debate and respectful constructive and candid public discourse. we need as much of that as possible in the case of the u.s. turkey relations right now. turkey has long been an especially important american ally critical to american foreign and security policy. it's been an ally for 65 years. this is especially a difficult period for turkey as it is for much of the world. turkey faces internal and

external challenges which all of us, whatever our own perspectives and concerns hope will be resolved in a way that contributes to regional peace, strengthens the ties between the two countries and upholds the democratic values of the transatlantic communities. we look forward to hearing from the president has pushed to have. then my colleague ambassador will conduct a conversation with a the president followed b presn opportunity for him to take a few questions from our guests. mr. president, thank you once again for being back at brookings. [applause]

>> translator: honorable guests, ladies and gentlemen i would like to greet you with respect to. at brookings is celebrating its centennial this year and it's a pleasure for me to meet you once again. i would like to start my words by reminding you of the fact

there has been a terrorist attack in the security forces. regretfully we lost seven members in the security force and we have injured police officers and i would like to convey my condolences to those that lost their lives to those that were injured. i'm very sorry about these attacks but those will forever keep us from fighting terrorism and the organizations show its strength through attacks and acts and we are determined to,

people are determined in this obstacle to the progress in our country. terrorists are being detected in one context or another and they keep attacking the country. we can't tolerate this anymore and the european countries and others [inaudible] my opinions of my counting to

those challenges recently humanity has been accused to the point in terms of science technology and we have quite a range from the revolution and rd internet to make life easier however this brings about new challenges in the security for example this income, the migration of terrorism are common problems that have an impact on the entire world and they are all related with each

other and equally important. the community needs to express how we can find comprehensive solutions. it's a problem with a in the international community [inaudible] it's okay to have the intersection of the most specific economic and cultural fault lines and the most important crisis it would be

experienced around turkey with more than 90300 kilometers in be surrounded by the troublesome territories. we never deviate from that approach but we believe that is a must in order to constitute the facility in the region and in the background we based the approach of the ancient culture and historical background and

the achievements in the last decade in the beginning of the century was a country that was the recipient of so turkey is a country that offered. we are third. we are the first and we can do as we always use the means even in the distant geographies like africa [inaudible]

for better welfare around the world to have to pursue. ladies and gentlemen. there are allegations and i follow those obligations. i would like to share a few examples. it is sacred in the society benefiting from the reforms in 2010.

the change introduced by the 26 obstacles doesn't only offer new rights to the citizens. at the unbuttonin ombudsmen also the force the packages to introduce the fundamental changes to the practices and the also drafted regulations to improve the human rights and the freedom of expression. we also had reform to make sure

that we can respond to the needs of average citizens belonging to different states and we've covered quite a long distance with our efforts. if you believe that this process is in the democratization than this means we have a very serious problem that has got nothing to do with us because we have some people who have withdrawn the constitutional rights and have resorted to various measures however this isn't the case in turkey. turkey is now the common target

despite this we are not compromising on the human rights democracy or the rule of law in the fight against terrorism and when we look at all of the threats that it's facing you can't find any country that pursues high standards and human rights democracy and we want to be treated fairly. it's viewed effectively as a partnership that can produce positive results. so now the crisis is along the same lines as the united states and we follow those today and

believe we have to keep the relationship in dynamic. there may be differences of opinion and this is the case of the relation that is deep enough to resolve disagreements for the diogue and we also believe that today we have a grounder that we can use to reinforce our relationship. there is now the election process and we are keen on following up on this presidential election and it's going to be interesting to see

what the outcome will be a big relation based on the common interests just like we did with respect to the choice of the american people to see how the positions work. we have a humanitarian crisis and these are priorities as now we have been very sincere for the 6 million to push out the

2,700,000 we have 300,000 taking refuge in the country that we never let them suffer the fate. 280,000 of them are now guests in various parts of the world. they are closing the refugees and there are people who have started in the coast guard

however there's hundreds of thousands that have filled their duties according to the data that leads to the four and $55 million. in the assistance it doesn't include by the local government either and including their assistant i believe that we stand 50% more than 10 million. we have 150,000 babies born in turkey and it's more than expected by the countries.

we never checked their origins or faith however the humanitarian problems are being ignored thinking that it's very unfair this is a humanitarian issue to solve this and specifically european countries and others. we are doing our best, however we don't believe that it will build everything on a security

measure for the humanitarian crisis and security there are people on a journey towards europe. they are not responsible for the crisis. the person that is responsible that uses violence to suppress the events of the people more than 500 were killed in syria since the beginning of the crisis and who will replace him if he is removed from his offi office? there are some countries that still have the question.

it is a terrorist organization that is in the regime and other elements are exposing them. the people are trying to get away from terror and try to look for a better future for themselves and children and people are traveling to europe. [inaudible] these are things we are watching as dictators on the other hand we also have those that are torn

apart by the regime in the other terrorist organizations that are going to try to get bigger and stronger as long as they keep the regime. turkey is a country that feels the pain of the crisis. we need peace and order immediately. however, this isn't the case. and thinking about iraq in the stability and success depends on

iraq as a model of the middle east and an element of balance. one third of the territories have been related by the organizations as they've been in the northern part of iraq. the government recently had some of their groups under different names in some part of the northern territories in iraq. it's only following its own

agenda. the pkk is exploiting the tragedies of the city and we also see that they are in the terrorist organizations to remove daesh if we want to win a victory over daesh to do that. the security defense is also facing turbulence needed to be

settled in a way that is compliant in the international law [inaudible] and after the incident with russia in november, 2015 we have challenges in relation with russia and we have to develop good relations with them after the cold war because the diplomacy of the russian government and its relations with suffering unfortunately

it's after the fighter jets in november, 2015 but despite that because they are countries that have interactions and several centuries of the common interest that requires the relation for the western counterparts in the relations from the point o thatf view and another important issue we are the motherland and we are determined to ensure the settlement to the problem first

and foremost we have to guarantee the people of cyprus and we need a comprehensive settlement by the end of this year. in may we are going to start the negotiation and the community has repetitively put forward their desire for a settlement and it's the great response to achieve a settlement on the island and if we can achieve that then we will have the important opportunities we can make use of including energy

projects. [inaudible] it is a clear indication of the approach to the settlement because it applies to the entire island and we hope they will be able to benefit from the proje project. [inaudible] and however they can be supplied if they wish and i haven't changed my position since.

from the international community we have support for the efforts. we have one more important issue in the region which is a between israel and palestine. the brothers and sisters are suffering enters the unfair treatment of israel. we've always been in support to them for peace in the middle east and the invasion of the territory shall be terminated and the need to have the state transformed its capital after the flotilla incident from

israel as it is explicitly stated to them. the prime minister called in 2013 and apologized and after that we started the negotiation settlement. he placed the man i heard the apology to the call into the conversation process that is now in progress and will be resolved without a problem. and assembled there was an attack and we have communicated

in their condolences. but we specify [inaudible] in several parts of the country and we continue to intensively fight against its operatives and actions. israel communicated their gratitude to turkey and we are in communication for the mutual cooperation and we believe that we are going to ensure positive

development and improve the relations with israel. another topic is to reword the embargo on the problem for the four hours a day if we can have tha power generated a vessel thy will be able to supply them with electricity and this is going to facilitate the lives of the people in gaza. this is something we communicated to the government and israel also knows that it is facing a very sincere water supply problem and we have to improve the situation.

we have placed our request desire to move forward to house their needs for schools and hospitals and we also have applied assistance in the supplies or construction materials and we are working to undies in the negotiations and i believe the policies are going to be in agreement as a result of these negotiations there is a constant instability on the distribution for the social

inclusion issues that we are going to face in the future each of these problems are problems that have destructive consequences to the new challenges in the irregular migration into xenophobia into the main threat caused by the problems in no country isolated from the problems. no matter where you are in the world, we are all exposed to the problems and when we face the challenges in the organization to work on ways to look for ways

out as the humanitarian issues that should be followed by every country in every country is ands facing terrorist threats. there isn't any country that isn't facing terrorist threats anymore. and we are sincere in our efforts and in the legislation stated all of the international development and draft so far. we are trying to fight the regulation for the identity and trigger some always creates a ground for itself by distance

learning and using pretext of terrorism doesn't have any moral values. we first have to agree on the basic principles but after that we have to act on the basic principles and the most important principle is to be determined is distinguished between one and the other. it is a terrorist organization that is active in this urea in iraq and people argue was we can't accept this. they are fighting against daesh

and this is also something that is completely unacceptable to us. the organizations are active in the pkk organizations and their equal so if that is the approach than i can say is that a terrorisisn't a terroristorganin don't we also have to consider the good organization? no because we can't really consider good or bad. we have to cooperate as coalition forces in our fight against the terrorist

organization. it's the same level of sincerity to fight against daesh and the threat to the entire region including the united states required to offer how we act together. we have to present it to the foreign fighters from entering the grounds and turkey is the country that has taken the measure against the even being supported to others that isn't reflective of how the international community should act for the pkk.

i know whe know in europe people organizing and funding in shifting the weapons to those organizations and in that case it loses its meaning and they were conducted in february and in march, people were changing the council and a extendabl fore organization members so those attacks are the same as those in brussels or paris and captured

despite the accord was released in brussels and in the attack we also have to apply to a before the terrorists that have to make it very important. it's been ten years and we asked for this person to be extradited and he hasn't been extradited since. each time we meet them and discuss her and they respond to us by saying we are in favor of freedom. what kind of freedom is that?

how about the person that is assassinated or who is going to defend the right of the victim? what kind of freedom is this and they are trying to convince us that it is a freedom of exploration. you are working in a company and you are killing your employer because you are an assassin. this is something that we all have to fight against.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: a crime of humanity as believers of muslim as a muslim mind announce all these arguments and disagree with the fact that any division should be associated with terrorism. terrorism is violence that targets people in distinctively. these have no place in any religion. how can a religion endorse and ideology which says you

can kill children? well, this terrorism is in human, and associating terrorism with the religion or nationality causes the development of inhuman ideologies like racism and xenophobia. when he better cooperation from the world. racism is on the rise in the most important obstacle to the development. we have started the alliance of civilizations.

the friendship group, it is housed by the un today. it is a very wide organization that has 118 members and this also requires not only the elimination of terrorism but also the grounds where terrorism is fostered because you can't get rid of people by killing them. the 1st have to make sure that you draw the wetlands where they grow. you have to make sure you have a strong, sustained full, balanced, global growth that includes all the countries command i believe that this also is a moral

liability, global trade is also being reshaped currently. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership the growth following this process. turkey. [inaudible] with the eu. align with their trade agreements. the free trade agreement has established on us. it will have a negative impact on the trade balance

also in the scope of this agreement we expect to report as i have stated at the beginning of our presentation. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i said that we have become a country that has been very successful so far, but in 2023 to make sure that we can celebrate while we have targets for ourselves in terms of economy and political standards.

we want to improve our social economy and political standards in order to contribute to the global community which is a contribution of support of our american friends that we are determined the target that we set for the centennial of our republics. i would like to thank once again the brookings institute for giving me the time. [applause]

>> thank you very much, mr. president. listening to your remarks and had to reactions. one, it is complicated. two, i'm glad that i don't have to deal with the problems that you are dealing with.