>> so you can see that women have a means of reinforcing to the best in their husbands or the worst. that's what this study is. >> they flashed the word from the field to the production office, and from there to the central office in oklahoma.

day and night our little telephone board was lit up like a christmas tree. calls from new york, california, she's been. bit by bit we begin to realize how big a thing this was. spent the financial benefits for farmers of leasing land for over a exploration and funded by the american petroleum institute. >> he always looked back to the natural land to his ranch, to the beautiful scenery in california and elsewhere in the south pacific to center himself and to find relief and release from the rigors and the degradation of the cities.

>> this pair played among a couple other types basically talked all the military aviators, army air corps and maybe how to fly. many guys never even saw an airplane coming from the farms and anywhere you can think of and the first airplane they saw was this. >> go to c-span.org. >> a look at middle east politics and security with former secretary of state madeleine albright and former national security advisor stephen hadley. the brookings institution posted this 90 minute event. >> good afternoon and welcome on behalf of the brookings

institution foreign policy program and a map of atlantic council. i'm suzanne maloney, director. i would like to extend a special account to my counterpart to join us here today including deputy director and ambassador richard lebaron. i would also like to extend a special welcome to our distinguished guests from the diplomatic community including his excellency, the ambassador. we are here to launch a report commissioned by the atlantic council's middle east strategy task force and written by my colleague tamara wittes is contained a task force working group on politics, governance and state society relations. this is one of five such groups organized by the middle east strategy task force, and by parts initiative launched in every 2015. brookings foreign policy has been proud to contribute to the task force project. not only via the report but also through the security and public

order working group whose support was offered last year by our colleague kenneth pollack. report you had before today is informed by tamara's discussion with working group reflects her own analysis. it helps explain the collapse and abilities state system, take stock of where we are and offers recommendations for tackling the crisis of governance in the middle east and the post arab spring environment. tamara -- with in a broader reality that years of deteriorating state society relations. tamara argues for the region to help society that erisa to terrorism and institutions that are effective and responsive for the long-term the most victims are effort to repair trust between government and their citizens. dialogue is needed as is patience and sustained effort on the part of the regional and international actors including the attorney. is a words of wisdom i think ago broadly in washington today.

as the title of this event suggest, we'll security and stability in the arab world will be determined by the quality of governance that takes hold. i encourage you to read the report and share your thoughts on the report and on today's discussion via twitter using hashtag -- the report were launched today was co-chaired by to today's panelists, former sec of state madeleine albright and former national security advisor stephen hadley. to individuals who need no introduction, to individuals who know more than just a little about real security. we are delighted to have them in a third panelist amr hamzawy. to join us here today to speak with tamara about the report. second albright will present prt some introductory mark sedll turned over to the panel. and, finallypanel.

and, finally, we would. and, finally, will invite vip. and, finally, we would like the itunes to concede and ask your questions and to engage in the discussion. thank you so much and welcome, senator albright. [applause] >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here and to have the opportunity to share this with brookings. thank you much for hosting us. i think as you pointed out what the things that really distinguished the atlantic council's middle a strategy task force is the way which we really able to partner with other institutions and scholars in washington and europe and in the region. it truly is a collaborative effort, and i think that as a talk about it today i think that will become even clearer but it truly was terrific in terms of just working together. enjoyed it very much. i think also just as we engaged

a multitude of institutions and the project we also tackle an awful lot of multitude of issues in the working groups we established. the working groups to produce the papers and so today we are releasing the fifth and final one on governance. unless you think this completes our work i want to announce after we'll take a break for turkey eating and cooking in my case, steve hadley and i will be publishing our final co-chairs report next wednesday. that report is going tattempt to knit together the topics tackled by each of the working groups into a new long-term approach for the region based largely on ideas from the region itself. are essentially has been is that we've all spent a lot of time looking at the region but a lot of it has been kind of fire drills and band-aids and that the basis of what we're doing is really taking a much deeper and longer look.

while we have time next week to address our broader strategy, today's discussion involves one of its most important components. we are going to be talking specifically about how to go to find a way out of the crisis in the middle east, the states of the region will be to address failures of governance. and, of course, the problems brought about by the lack of accountable responses and effective state institutions in the middle east as is a well-known to people it is obvious. the role these played in the breakdown of the region order has, in fact, been downplayed and to what you hear is governments are a central use of the trouble in the middle east, something with which i hardly agree. because i should pu go to the up any of the region didn't come from outside intervention nor did it come from the top. it really did come from below, from millions of frustrated people whose expectations part

of the opportunities that were unavailable to them. as we've seen over the past five years it's far easier to identify the cause of turmoil that defined a solution. for lack of trying. but i really do think we have to keep that in mind. the first challenge in any journeys have a destination in mind. for the people of the region i'm convinced that this destination is governance built on a foundation brought and stable enough to last, and that by definition governments that have the trust of their citizens, respect the rights and respond to their needs. as suzanne mentioned, and his paper offers a framework from the region and begin building toward such a model of sustainable governance and argues this webcast to begin now the matter what else is going on. there are many in the region and in the united states who do have a different view and they argued that these questions of

political development can only be addressed after nations achieve security and prosperity. i happen to believe that political development and economic development need to go together. i know all of these very forums would argue which came first and which came second in the reason say that is because people want to vote and eat. and so that governments have to deliver. they also want to live in peace. one of tammy main argument is, it depends on includes a transparent and responsive and accountable governance. this raises some tough questions about u.s. policy including whether we still have the ability and the responsibly to exert leverage on these issues. with the transition underway in washington the answers are more uncertain than they have been in the past and it's worth pointing

out that for more than a century stability in the middle east has been understood to be the responsibility of an external power whether it was the british empire or the united states of america. yet according to the president of the united states, until stable and i quote and tell stable governments are set up and supported locally, the middle east will never call down. that pronouncement came from the white house, not a barack obama but of dwight eisenher in 1956. over the decades we have learned not to expect miracles even though that's what you're supposed to come from in the middle east, we have learned not to give up. while the united states remains in my mind the indispensable nation to the city of the region, i've always quick to point out that there is nothing in the word indispensable that means alone. after a bit of time which the united states has been accused

of doing too much and they do little, we didn't on this discussion about our role and our relationships and our responsibilities. and that's what i'm so pleased to be a part of this bill a strategy task force with my very good friend steve hadley. it's been an extraordinary learning experience for both of us and an opportunity to work with some truly wonderful people. one of them is a tammynd established provider and the rest of our panel to come up on stage. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you for being here and let me begin by thanking my two fantastic co-chairs, steve hadley and madeleine albright. when we started this project o off, steve and madeleine told each of us working group chairs not be afraid to ask the questions and to challenge our assumptions. i think recognizing that in the middle east this is a moment of truth historic transition, and i think the questions both for the

region and for those of us outside who care about the region and have a stake in the region, that questioning of assumptions is even more important today than it was when we started the project. somebody want to thank you both for fantastic process. i also want to thank my fellow working group members in the region and all over the u.s. and europe your we met virtually and in person and i learned a great deal from all of them and they are listed in the report. so i hope you'll take a look and share my appreciation. it may seem as though today's topic is in the odd choice for focus or maybe it's not a propitious time to talk about governance and middle east. after all we're doing with a region in violent turmoil is set by the vicious civil war. the u.s. and its allies are not invested in new military

conflict in iraq and also in syria fighting faces. and, indeed, i just came back from international security forum in halifax where the only discussion of the middle east was framed around terrorism, isis, civil war and refugees. these are the urgent problems that are seen by many governments around the world as a threat to international security, deservedly so embedded driving attention to the region. it's precisely because of those urgent challenges that i think it's invaluable to focus in this report on governance in the region. because to my mind isis and the civil wars are symptoms of something bigger. they are symptoms of a broader breakdown in the region. they are not the disease. what we've seen beginning in late 2010 was a breakdown both of individual states and of the state system in the middle east that has lasted since the eisenhower administration. a state system that has advanced

its american interests and those of our partners, system that the united states sought to defend. it's that breakdown of the middle east order that has led to the civil wars and libya and yemen and syria and the rise of crisis. so understanding why and how these regional order broke down i think is necessary to understand how to effectively deal not just with the symptoms of that breakdown but with the challenges of restored lasting stability to this region. that is the premise and the driving question of the report we are releasing today. let me focus on three things about that breakdown that a think it's important to understand and what they suggest about the path ahead. the first thing to understand is as madeleine noted the regional order broke down because of things that happened inside states come inside societies.

because pressures that were built up over many years. the first part of the story as a start i told about that it published in 2008, that's the story of how the bureaucratic authoritarian model in the arab world begin to weaken. how the ideology, the coercive mechanisms that the state relied on to survive were become less and less effective in a globalized world. they rested on a certain kind of social contract, and corporative contract. and over time the systems became more and more inefficient on their own terms and then they were child both from within and without from a demographic bulge of young people in the cusp of adulthood to the effects of the globalized economy, and from a radically new information environment prompted first by

satellite television and then by the world wide web 1.0 and 2.0. and so the effect on citizens in these countries was that the expectations created under the old social contract could not be fulfilled in these changed conditions. just to give a couple of incators, the egyptian government dating back to not serve promise university graduates be able to get a civil service job. by the early 2000 the weight time for this university graduates to get that civil service job was on average eight years. so that's eight years of pushing a food cart or driving a taxi or twiddling your thumbs, waiting for your life to begin. in the meantime you can't afford an apartment. you can't afford to get married. he can't afford to become a full

adult participant in society. the second thing to understand about the why and how of this breakdown in the middle east is that no one in the run up to the arab uprisings was unaware of these challenges. that's a very important thing i think to understand. it's how governments dealt with these challenges action ended up in many cases exacerbating the problems rather than resolving them. we had a lot of talk in an effort in 1990s and 2000 to promote refor reform of governae every form of economies in the middle east. but when many arab governments sought to adjust that social contract, they ended up instead of developing a more inclusive social contract, negotiating a chassis with political and economic elites whether within their own country or exrnal institutions like the world bank and the imf.

they reduce government hiring without really liberating the private sector to create growth. they brought new business cards into the ruling parties instead of opening up politics more broadly. the result of these adjustments exacerbated inequality, further apart some groups ethics vince of otherand increased their grievances rather than resolving them. and so the scent increased, government tools to manage politics were weaker and the protests broke out. this brings me to the third thing went to understand about how this all happened. the consequences of how certain states broke down. when the protest came, many governments responded poorly in ways that exacerbated divisions, collapsed state institutions and some governments responded with violence in ways that generated

demand for more violence. so it's no accident in this analysis that syria and libya are the places in the region that are most violent and most this order. these are the places where leaders ruled in the most personalized manner, where the destruction of civil society and community institutions where the making of those things subservient to the state was the most complete. and so having failed to act in a manner that could prevented these uprisings when the uprisings came, these leaders not to repress these people. when order broke down those with guns who imposed their will gain the power. and when the state use violence against its citizens it created a market for others with guns to defend those citizens against the state. and that allowed the emergence of identity-based sectarian militias, extremist groups with

horrific agendas. so by the chines time these govs have broken down, the social contract has broken out over long period before, and social trust, the basic trust between people and communities had eroded. there was very little left to manage peaceful politics. this is the challenge we confronted in the middle east. beyond the geopolitical competition between iran and saudi arabia, beyond the threat posed by extremist terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, this is the biggest challenge in rebuilding a stable order in the region is the breakdown of trust within society. it's a consequence both as a way to govern and the way they broke down. the paper goes into detail on all the subjects and offers some clarity on the way forward to tackle the problem. let me give you a few highligh

highlights. first, the future of the region will be determined not by the existence of governance although that's what many are focused on in the midst of this disorder, but on the quality of the governance. if we don't have more accountable responsive, transparent and effective governance, it will not be sustainable governance. it will face more challenges to it will eak down again. conflicts that are suppressed will reemerge. so we have to think about the quality of governance, not just -- it's no surprise any of you that i think liberal democracy is far more likely than any other regime type to generate accountable transparent, responsive government but the path between the bread or where the region is today a democracy is neither swift nor linear, and the of ashley can testify to that although i think there was

impressive progress along the path. the paper lays out a few practical ways to begin rebuilding the basis for the kind of sustainable governance. let me just mention two key insights. first, i don't think the question we face regarding how to build this new order is about territory or state borders are where lines are drawn on a map. it's about what happens within those lines. remember it's about social trust. there's a line you can draw between shia and sunni in iraq that will not be fought over. and just as the creation of south sudan did not magically resolve the conflict inside sudan or south sudan, division will not automatically resolve the conflict within iraq or syria. it's also not about institution building. after our military figures in iraq and afghanistan the u.s.

and our allies spent a lot of time standing up new institutions, parliament, courts, central banks. the ideas you build this machine of government and you populated and you start the gears turning and it should go. but i think we learned from these last 15 years that building institutions is not enough. it matters how those institutions are populated and by whom. i inclusive of everyone with a stake in the process? do they have a process people think is fair and transparent? that brings me to the other insit that i want to leave you with before we have a broader conversation, which is that what's most important to effective sustainable governan governance, to effective sustainable institutions in the middle east today is dialogue and conflict resolution. it seems like an obvious thing

to say to the old line that war is a continuation of politics by other means, but it is true. and i think it's a basic beginning aspiration for the future of the middle east to shift conflicts that are underway into a nonviolent channel. and also to pay special attention to those places where political conflict is being suppressed, where dialogue is being suppressed for fear that those places may become violent if there's no room or no capacity or no institutions of forums for peaceful dialogue and peeful politics. finally it suggests to me that sustainable governance in middle east in the future will be much more decentralized than it's been in the past. you don't rebuild social trust from the top down. you rebuild it from the bottom

up. there's a broader need to build governance in a way that citizens can see and view and buy into. i think we already see a number of experiments across the region in more decentralized governance, whether it's the empowerment of elected councils in morocco or the way in which lebanese have managed their governance needs in the absence of a president until very recently. or the way they govern in baghdad is struggling to set conditions for locally affected governance in the areas about to be liberated from isis. so i think local governance is what we need to focus on if you want to replace violence and mistrust with something more sustainable. with that let me stop and look forward to our conversation. spirit let me just say, thank you very much. it's a great paper and they really do urge you to read it.

here's what we're going to do for the rest of the time. amr will speak for about 10 minutes or so, reacting to the paper, getting a little better sense of what's in it. and then we'll have a conversation with some broad questions come and will go probably until about five minutes of the four or 4:00. we will then throw it open for questions, comments from the audience come and we will end promptly at 4:30 p.m. that's our plan to use the time available to us. amr come over to you. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here. thank you very much for having me on the panel and is a pleasure to join the panel with madam secretary being with us today. it's a great paper. i would like to congratulate you and the working group on a smart analys and great insight on how to look at politics, middle

eastern politics and dynamics as they appear to be. i'm going to follow steve's recommendation and really recommend everyone to take a look at the paper. it offers a detailed analysis and it does not stop where have i stopped because a time, and to engage of course. it really gives us -- was that happen in the region since the 1960s. all the way to 2011 and beyond. in that spirit to engage the table i'm going to underline three points which i feel are relevant in building on the recommendations. number one is, and here i truly sugar analysis with regard to loss of trust between state institutions and citizens in the region.

it's across a very wide spectrum all the way from north africa, all the way -- all the way from countries which have been doing relavely better socioeconomically come on countries which been suffering from unemployment, corruption and so on and so forth. yes, clearly we have been having lots of public trust in state institutions, and that has been happening in the background of arab societies, middle eastern societies. ..

>> this did not add up but that led to an alternative vision, an alternative credible vision for a new central contact so what we are looking at with old social contacts, social lapses and new source of social context which have yet to be found. so the number one, and i believe this has legs for the next five years.we are still looking at atrocities in the same, devising autocracies or stated autocracies are limited liberal experiments as we had then, in raqqa or elsewhere.

we are still looking at the dynamics. we do not have real social contracts,legitimate infrastructure contracts . number one is how to bridge the gap. between these institutions and citizens, groups, segments of the population which have lost. the fifth point we need to look at is a question of social caps so i would like to rephrase it how our society generates social caps and social capitalism never comes top down. it has to be bottom-up. when you look at the fabric of middle eastern society and focus on that society, i'm not an expert at all but when we look at societies , the only way to imagine social capitalism emerging is the real social contact is

redefining the relationship between institutions and population, institutions a societies. if we are looking at these institutions away from the collapsed areas in syria and libya, these inspections, pluralist integrations are not out there and if we do not have a ideological explanation, that can hurt our vision which is not a viable risk of parties. we will not have viable movements and th adds up to those countries. this is upholding in a different matter. it comes down to a civil society leading forward, one of the leading forces in putting the country forward to a new experiment of democratic government. the question is how can we

empower civil society organization, civil society activism? what are the conditions available and present in this environment which can hand civil society prospects? what are the conditions which i believe are the countries which undermine civisociety and here i'd like to highlight two points, one is the very fabric that we are still looking at constitutions and frameworks which in fact do not safeguard the autonomy of civil society which undermines our central society after the suspects that leads to state control, typically security nets control. second, you can see the association, organization, constituency building are not safeguards in most countries,

civil society organizations now and up being urban-based, focused on whole segments of the population and do not have a comparable outreach to society organizations in any democracy, either western or on western democracy. intwo issues we have to look at , once again i say the analysis is we will not get to lead security through the state government if we do not get to viable, even democratic governments. the two key issues which we have to look at our how to face the real and the right conditions for civil society organization for profit or civil society organization to present this segment of the population and new social contact which is that which leads in most arab countries. secondly, how to safeguard free speech which no one would fashion these organizations and apart from

the fact this is one of the regions which suffers the most from violations of organization. second, poini would like to underline is once again going to a great site which he offers any of the papers in any group on prioritizing justice. i like one of the recommendations which tammy articulates toward the end of the paper as prioritizing justice the way i understand the report is that to privatize the all security factors, prioritize the forming of judicial institutions, court systems as well as the paradigm of law enforcement and why? because this is one of the key reasons why citizens don't trust state institutions. it's sometimes we politicized the debate of a human rights violation and we consider. it's not how great the

political impacts of having regimes or government for equal rights or even, no, it's about citizens and how you look at state security institutions. how do you look at police stations ? how do you look at in some places, the military security and institutions governing as a country. prioritizing justice is in fact to my mind and once again to build on that analysis in the papersmeans to my mind number one , and here this access can help us in society so once again, government organizations or anything outside can offer some help as well because we do have to teach them how to do that. number one is to look at era constitutions and governing, social institutions, security

sectors, military establishment and try to convince them to reflect the values of what democracy is all about. accountability and transparency. if you follow just the events for example throughout the last day, we have been hearing about citizens who lost their lives in police discussions. this is not a new phenomenon in egypt, it keeps happening. this is in the last 48 hours or 72 hours. once again, as long as we are going to have accountability and transparency, institutions to law enforcement, citizens will continue to have no trust in government even if they are elected, even if they are democratic and legitimate. and here, international expertise has to push lawmaking frameworks of

greater accountability and transparency. secondly, and once again civil society actors need help. in some countries, we see not only the closure of public space and in egypt, but like by rain and elsewhere, sometimes they collapse and we have to be evacuated. egypt's civil societies are not only a domestic set of actors. it's where they expand to these actions which obey in europe and elsewhere. so here we are an international corporation, in effect a government and it can be a nongovernmental organization who has as these actors facing displacement, facing a rule of extinction, facing evacuation and to abuse. the final point and once again, maybe trump hashtags in the region but i believe

this is safe in the us at least for some time. here is the distance between civilian and non-civilian politics. one of the reasons why looking at western governments in the region, why it's important to initiate and strengthen comparing to nigeria to morocco or comparing different countries where military establishments are dominant actors in politics and other countries where we have civilians in thislite managing politics is also coming off the significant agreement is the very fact of pushing forward compromise, pushing forward consensus and ideological alliances. inching forward new social contracts where citizens can hold the government accountable is not easily done if you have military government.

if you have government for military security establishments, one key distinction when you look at arab countries in 2016 is the difference between countries where the military security establishments are the dominant face in politics and the countries once again, tunisia, morocco and elsewhere where civilians, significantly dynamics because civilian groups are in charge. we have a backing of civilian troops accepting their cultural mind as opposed to military security establishments. so this has to be a focus when we look at government and how to push forward democratic governance and your paper says that. thank you very much. i want to ask one second question but i think i was misled by it and as well, you used the phrase privatizing

justice. i have the notion of you know, private-sector taking over the police but i thin what you mean is the transparency and accountability that allows citizens to hold those institutions to account. have i got right? there you go. all right. we've talked about picking up on something amr hamzawy said the beginning, you talk about how the state government led to the collapse of civil wars in iraq, syria and deliver libya so one question is are other states in the region at risk? have we seen the last of the dominoes or are there other dominoes potentially to fall and if so, what will bring that about? >> i think that's a crucial question because for all

their international attention is drawn to eggs that have already fallen off the wall, there are others that are up there waddling and there have been a number of analytical attempts to sketch out what did those broken eggs have in common? and you've seen some arguments about republics being more vulnerable than monarchies for example. what i see in the places that i would say are today still vulnerable is those places where as we saw in egypt, you have an aging leader with no clear succession stance and certainly no apparent accountable responsive mechanism fordetermining succession . those are potential crisis points for any government. and you know, we've just been undergoing our regular

exercise and peaceful transition of power here. it is always a delicate moment, even for the most established democracies but in those places that don't have established traditions, it can become a very dangerous moment so i would look for example at nigeria where you have an aging leader been there for a long time with no evidence process or consensus on a way forward. i think we could say the same about the palestinian authority today. and so you have a succession crisis and no connection as was highlighting between citizens and government. they don't feel like there's a way in area would you agree with that? >> tammy is right in pointing down the historical

precedents which we did have in the regioprior to 2011. egypt was in effect in a succession crisis where 2011, the bulk of the country was, who is going to succeed mubarak? i guess she's right in pointing out nigeria but when you look at that, it is not only the ruling establishment who move things forward in a succession plan of sorts but what's amazing as well is how to tackle the lost precedents in any arrangement, in government and sensibility. in tunisia, coincidences on the rise, because tunisia managed to put the institutions in place. they are out there, everyone's talking about them. but you still have a constitution, institutional framework in place which makes sense. what is missing in egypt once democracy moves back and is the institutional

arrangements which people attempted after 2011 where they are going away and we are in between dividing what exists in 2011 and maybe going back to egyptian and the same goesfor a place for algeria , where no one knows what is happening. >> i'm going to ask madeleine to start on this one. it's interesting because the places you kept were algeria and the past authority. those are not traditional monocle societies. one of the things you may remember when we started this project, we said this is about a crisis of legitimacy in italy. we said of course legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed and we said wait, this is embedded in a sophisticated, there are other forms of legitimacy in regions based on tribal associations, religious affiliations, revolutionary

ideology, there are a range of form of legitimacy so how do you square that ? what as we look at the middle east going forward path 2011, what do we say about legitimacy and what do we say to these regimes that may be teetering on theshelf if not falling off ? what in the post-2011 world, what is the way, what would be your recommendation? to hand them legitimacy of their regimes before they go forward ? >> i think that perry mentioned social contracts a lot and i think we have to remember what it is area i think people think of it as a western concept but basically people gave up some of their individual rights in order to get protections and security in se form and obviously that is different with a monarchy. and so still, there is that same responsibility, what is

it that the leader owes his people? and i think when you're asking about different countries, i think those are interesting words that were picked but i would say that this is almost like a virus. and one of the things that we have not talked about is the influence of technology. and one of the things that really did bring up, i mean, it starts with a man in tunisia who emulates himself and the news gets out and all of a sudden it spreads and i think that clearly what happened in the center square was social media. so i actually don't know places moving forward to it. so one of the questions, and i kind of hate to finger any country but if you look at a country like jordan for instance that is a monarchy, front-line state and one of the most difficult refugee situations, not a ch place .

and a king who is trying to figure out the various coalitions and kind of a transit point and it goes to the very point as to whether the state is providing places from the people. and i think that one of the things, and it really you are right about aside, in terms of what is it that the state those people and initially, in all these countries, they were the employer of first resistance and where that is not possible anymore, that puts the question the trust issue so legitimacy to a great extent i think in this day and age is depends on whether the old leaders, new leaders, the king, the deputy crown prince or whatever actually is delivering because technology has made it possible for people to know what people in other places have. and especially to bring another point, what you said

about the younger generation. they are technologically adept. and by the way, i have been talking about this particularly for 10 days but basically, in addition to the things you think i'm talking about, is the current that i just spent time with a group of foreign ministers in silicon valley, talking about technology and government. and what it has done in terms of providing people relation as to whether they have a legitimate government.and it has desegregated them in a way that makes some of the organizational things you are talking about hard. some of you will say this and i always admit that i stole this line but the thing that is interesting is people are talking to their governments on the 21st century technology. the government listens to them onthe 20th century technology .or hears them

but may not be listening. and provides 19th century responses so that disconnect is what we are dealing with and it's very evident in egypt and the question is, i think yplace would be something to this despite the fact that the ones you chose are very specific but legitimacy is what is the government supposed to be doing? whether it's a queen or a dictator? >> we want to push it one more to you tammy and that is clearly, what is the government delivering and you talk a lot about accountability in inclusive societies. does encouraging states to moving those directions in fact proved complementary to or supplementary to other traditional forms of legitimacy. for example, the model states are dependent? or does it in fact have

ripped undermining those other sources of legitimacy? it seems you have to be able to answer that question if you goo a monarch and say you ne to move in a new direction of legitimate and responsive governance . and that monarch has to have some understanding that that will be supplemental to and doesn't mind the traditional source of legitimacy. >> sure. i think there's important language that i would recommend in order to measure this question which is it's not about what government does with citizens, i think that is really about what citizens accept from their government. not what they need but what they expect and that's part of what's changed. that's part of the impact of technology. and one of our other working groups really put his finger on this in his paper which is that part of what's happened

in the arab world and around the world among this younger generation is what he calls a participation revolution. that because of technology, but just because his generation, we are highly educated, more engaged than any generation before. parts of the region, two or three generations ago, didn't even have secondary schools. this was tremendous and this rising generation has a different set, globalized set of expectations. it's not just about making sure they had a job. they expect to be able to participate, they expect to be able to set their own path in life and not have it directed for them by their monarch or their father or their uncle or anybody else. and absence, what they expect is the thing that liberal societies arbest structured

to provide, it's the opportunityfor every individual to find their own path . to put this in philosophical terms. so governance can't get away with just offering enough jobs or enough healthcare or in a free education. i checked the boxes and they are legitimate. they have to keep that set of expectations, they have to get people opportunities to find for themselves a pathway and that means they have to be more open, they have to be more responsive. now, to the point of your attention, it is a mentor ship. if you are a very traditional leader who believes that the only way you can help your society grow is by directing it from the top down, that is not the only form of system. even for a monarch area so

the traditional pathway may be, i am the source of social good. i distribute but you've got to be the source of opportunity. you can be a source of dynamism. and that is a different mentality but it's possible one other thing that has to be put into the mixture and again, egypt is a perfect example is to what extent is the freedom of this desegregated voices in our your square for order and at a certain point, although i've been saying first that the young people in tahrir square were having an interesting time having gotten there by social media and the older man who cannot get to his stall in the market place says i can't stand this anymore. i need some order. so i think one could actually be persuaded that the he was

elected or there was really a movement that happened because people were fed up with the chaos and i think the hard part is how inclusivity and getting participation, whether people are tolerant enough to go through the chaos time until they get to the prosperous time i want to go to amr on that and i want to rephrase it a bit and that will be our last question and then we will go to the audience. if you remember lawrence of arabia, he says i am a person of the people, that's a old form of legitimacy. what you are saying is legitimacy based on status is gone but what people expect from their governments, that increasingly includes participation and a role in fashioning their own future. i get that.

i spent three hour sessions in about 14 months and i've tried to make this argument that this is a source of legitimacy. this is what you cannot do if over the long term he's going to create long-term stability and i have not yet made the state and what you hear is what you expect from it given the trauma that egypt has been through. i understand what you are sang. you need to understand this is a difficult time. there is extremism at the door. and we cannot, the middle east cannot stand a breakdown in order of a country of 9 million people, you think the refugee flows are bad now to syria, you just wait until egypt takes over so what is the argument you make to a person who sees himself as

defending his country and the region against extremism, that that his his vocation. in which he sincerelybelieves . how do you make the argument that this is where he's got to go? to make long-term stability for his country? >> this is basically the debate we are having in the region. that in 2011, even early on, we do have enough accents and enough cases to push forward a very clear argument for democracies cannot provide for long-term stability. now, egypt demographically before 2011, what happens over after 2011 is the fact that to be accurate, it does

not begin on january 25 2011. we took years of activism, young people demanding that voices should be heard. that their concerns should be addressed. and that is in the background of a failing government which not assess these terms, we coistently see and i beg to differ. it was not only young people. in the beginning there were young people but there were grievances which we are highlighting and outlining social economies and their impact and in a country where you have 50 percent rate of poverty, unemployment among young people over 40 percent, among females, young female citizens over 45 percent and more. for them to take to the streets, i know democracies never managed to provide for long-term stability. six these are security challenges, not only

challenges but challenges in the region that need to be accounted for so the question is, how to get government and the only way to get them is by listening to civil society actors. we need an organized presentation of citizens to get government to listen, to listen to tribes. i believe civil society access leads to solutions. we do not have to undermine more trust among citizens by violating key human rights, by envisioning and killing citizens in police custody and elsewhere. and not providing enough social and economic solutions in living conditions. if they listen as a ruler, a government listens to their own constituents, their military and security establishments, not only their business elite which benefit and the systems that do exist is they listen to civil society actors, they will find solutions.

the irony of the modern state is in fact it was a modern state which pushed forward the developmental elites that europe led to. it's since the 1960s, this week's created by the modern state and in a way the modern state aided the development and even leads in education and health care and elsewhere and yes, they're the most connected generation that we are looking at but in a way, they are more monistic. we don't address what these voices are demanding. >> one more comment and we will go to the audience. >> i think that it's a false choice between mass mobilization, allah tahrir square and authoritarian order and i would say it's not that a leader is a river for his people but the people are a river and like water,

they're going to find outlets. so the challenges whher you can create channels and mechanisms and pathways for people to have the influence they want to have over their own lives and the lives of their community or whether left with no alternative they will spill into the streets. and the failure of reform in tahrir square leading up to the uprisings is what compelled that mass mobilization. what we see in egypt today that troubles me very much and i doubt it's quite destabilizing and dangerous is a leader who believes that by putting a lid on it, that's lowered the boil in the pot. as you all know,you put a on the pot, the boil increases . and that's what i've found in egypt right now, we have no civil society channels, no effective political channels

because the parliament and party system are so tightly managed, we have no speech channels and it so that pot is boiling very effectively in a way i think is far more dangerous in many ways then the suspicion that is in the uprising. >> i love your phrase. but people are a river but the leader does not chattel but they will spill over into the streets. >> try it on fiji. >>. [laughter] i will wait on that. let's get microphones, we have microphones, good. thank you. in the front. please identify yourself so we can get a lot of questions in. if you will keep the questions short, wewill keep the answers short .>> the

questions with long answers. university of washington and miami position on civil relations in israel and i think listening to you, it's fascinating how you are describing analytically egypt and their world but a lot of what you are saying applies to other faces on the periphery of this arab world or the four arab countries and in particular, i argue that it's going through the regime of concern where it's turning into the making of the mubarak regime where all the civil society and expression and all that, it's as if there is a ping-pong kind of regional order in people hating one another so i guess i wonder because i haven't read the report and that, is there for middle east policy a peripheral vision to other countries

within the region including turkey, including israel of course, a crackdown on civil society in israel and the law that you have to account for international law. a lot of what's been decided seems to me like it's a conversation everywhere in the region at large. is that part of the teamwork you would encourage a doctrine and also our countries but also other countries in our neighborhood if you will. >> you want to take that one? >> first i would say yes, it's politics and while every region and every country has its own history and culture that shapes the way those politics express, there are certain common features. and yes, there are demonstration effects. both positive and negative and in the paper i talk about the competing models for governance in the middle east

today. the fragile democratic experiment of tunisia, the effort at renewed authoritarianism in egypt and the brutal, savage order of isis which is also a model competing in the region and that's part of what you see is, what are people going to embrace in the midst of this turmoil? and i do think it's having it and affect on those on the periphery of the region. but i also think that some of those dynamics for example, the global pushback against civil society and association of freedom in starting the middle east and it hasn't stopped in the middle east. we see it in russia, we see it in india and elsewhere. >> dcm, foreign embassy, congratulations to the task force for the working group for completing this. my government i think finds a lot to agree with in this report. we think that it addresses a

key aspect. implementing it is going to be hard work because i do think that when someone has worked in the region until recently, if all the people are afraid of challenging the order because there's such a level of chaos and disintegration aroundthem , and i think that's something that needs to be looked at but i would go back and wonder either you address it in the report in a sense to me the basic point is are we doing enough as governments taking interest in the region but we are not part of the region. for example, human rights. for example, bringing out arbitrary tension, extra did judicial detention which come before democracy when we talk aboutfreedom of association, freedom of association is important . we would ask to support that what the human rights rule of law part is to me absolutely

fundamental and that's where we see such great misbehavior and violations all around the region. >> let me say i believe we do or at least we try. but i think that the problem comes having tried it in this country that we n help you if you don't do something about your loss and human rights. that was, mind your own business but i do think that we have to do that, even if it is not received well and it is argued that by those who don't want to do it that it adds to the chaotic situation. the question is, and this has come up over and over again is our human rights, democracy, participation people a best concept or is it a global concept? i have argued itsglobal . we want to be able to make decisions about their own lives and they want to have

some absence of arbitrariness . but it's not an easy message to the liver and frankly, if it's not delivered alongside with practical assistance, whether it's security or aid programs, then it does have to go together and if we don't do it, your country and hours, then you are not fulfilling our responsibility so it's not received and steve can testify to that. >> if i can s one thing that you touch a very important point. those countries that are making steps in the direction of what kenny has talked about, you see it in the uae most of all, you begin to see it in saudiarabia , jordan , certainly tunisia is doing it . it's hard to do that and keep your society together. in a benign security and regional environment. about the environment in the

middle east today. and to say to a leader, we need you to take the risk of reform and moving in this direction in a region that is in many respects, this is a hard thing. to ask of leaders and we have to recognize that. one of the things we say is that the attitude of the international community ought to be if you are willing to make those hard decisions, and ease the international community will support you financially and with technical assistance. if you don't, we won't. not because we are being punitive but because of our judgment it would be a bad investment.it's a good investments are going to be those states that are willing to make these kinds of jobs on behalf of their people because we think they are the most likely to result in achieving long-term prosperity. i think we have to recognize basically what we are asking

and we need to be engaged and willing to step in and willing to make the right decisions. >> jennifer smith, i was legislative director for politics and lived in saudi arabia since 2013. two quick comments and two parts of thereport, one is the issue of trust . my observation, obviously based on my experience in saudi is one of the issues to think about his trust among people themselves. they have the freedom to express each other how they struggle with these issues so it's not just government but it's that key issue of trust. how are you providing comfort levels for saudi's, jordanians, people across the west out of fear? second related issue to me is some of the most moving conversations i have starts with the presence of finding

the political philosophy foundation with in islam, within the region, within the culture i have two questions, and obviously one, what are the values in islam that have the deepest meaning to you? and that's a conversation. and the second is your dialogue issue. the second part how do you want to see them express it? and to me, when you then grounded in a specific cuure and something that grows, as you mentioned, that come from the bottom up, the cultural component and religious components obviously sees this but those two issues combined are a different take on the virginia report, thank you. >> thank you, just aquick reflection on that , that very thoughtful comment which is that absolutely and i do in t paper talk about social structures between communities, not just

citizens and government. ifou're thinking about a case like libya or syria where the society has truly collapsed to sectarian civil war or try the civil war, you have to think about that. and there are things that can be done even now while these conflicts are ongoing to build forums and platforms for dialogue to suppress conflict resolution. there are successful programs including programs done in iraq where communities came together around dialogue before idp's were brought back in to the town so that the idp's have to immediately justify themselves or feel themselves under threat on their return and the communities can feel comfortable with the return. i think there are examples we can build on and perhaps we can do. one perhaps on the previous point from our german colony,

and i wanted to echo something that my colleague general john allenas said in the book which is from his perspective, as someone who spent the last years of his military and civian career fighting terrorism, if we external actors who have invested so much military fight do not also invest in the governance peace, we are essentially going to be playing whack a mole with the extremists on a global scale because this problem will create re-create itself again and again. >> other comments, questions? >> i am sherry, tommy with a private firm that works in the middle east. my question is actually expanding on the notion of social trust and i think you framed it so well in talking about the breakdown in the middle east and particularly when we think about the relationship that a

government has with its citizens and with the expectations or the relationship that a citizen has back with its government. that the citizens have with their government and one could certainly argue now not just with relief but here in the united states that we are beginning to some extent and erosion of social trust with certain groups who may be feeling more marginalized or more uncertain with relation to their government.and i would just ask if you can comment about what can a citizen do in terms of rebuilding social trust and how would that be most effective? let's take that in common on the other question to. >> tothe region and i'm not commenting on the other , it's striking that the two countries which witnessed the emergence and explosion of tribal conflict, multiethni

conflict, libya and syria are the two countries where dictatorships crushed intermediary organizations between governments and citizens so the distance to a place like tunisia and egypt, as opposed to libya and syria is we would be approaching libya and egypt having establishedcivil society in tunisia . so later associations, professional organizations, civil society, active human rights defendants and in egypt, in terms of the authority and independence, the media in syria discuss these intermediary layers. between the citizens and the government so the citizens have dictators who did not feel like authorities and the only way for citizens to organize was ideologies

because there was no alternative given to them by civil society actors who did not challenge. once again, the social structure when we look at this and why syria, what's happening in libya and syria should not be happening elsewhere in the region, the thing that comes to it is not to operate an autocratic leader but to aid in government to create channels between citizens and government to enable civil society to exist, to enable civil society to thrive. this is the only wayto ease multiethnic tension. why is it in morocco for example and that is not a full-fledged democracy. in a civil society, why is there any civil slight? we do have an established arena for civil society actions where citizens can bring their grievances, their demands from the government and we see that they are listened to.

that makes sense. >> other questions, comments? gentleman way in the back. >> thank you. greg with american university. my question is for a. i appreciate your comments on global society and the need for civil society organizations outside the region to help those inside the region but as you know, especially in egypt, the government portrays us as a foreign conspiracy and will play up the hyper- nationalism and prevent that type of assistance. so how do you get around that problem and have civil society of the united states or in europe helping those on the ground in egypt, thank you. >> thank you greg. i believe we do not want to shy away from pushing forward

the counter narrative and we do not have to submit to the hyper- nationalist, either populist narrative of what happened in the conspiracy, is not. and if we would like to look at the past government, we should keep in mind that those that have been enduring for a long time, we should push forward the narrative where we have civil society, not only in these governments that would enable citizens to create among segments of the population. secondly, there are cases where they operate as in egypt, there are cases which are less effective, tunisia, morocco, even some countries as opposed to egypt. finally, once again, this is a question of overanalysis. what does it take to fix the season? proper security, proper democracy? it's to aid in civil society, to exist, to thrive and to

assist citizens and their demands to be addressed, to be responded to by a government. >> we are running shy on time. what i'm going to do is take the two that i pointed to hear and i'm going to take to from this side and we're going to go through those questions and then we're going to try to answer those four questions in the panel andthen we are going to be out of time i'm afraid . any, you had one. >> the woman to behind you and then we will get you after that. >> marissa, i'm a jordanian in development with a focus on governance and going back to the gentleman's question regarding civil society, i have a lot of hope in civil society and in the absence of political will on the part of government, most places are very limited and you

discussed options but beyond a foreign government assisting but also on governmental organizations. i want to throw another group out there in the next and perhaps this could be one other way of looking at it, the rule of desperate communities, there have been studies in economic development but what about also promoting and strengthening others? thank you. >> two rows up? >> high, then a velocity, from texas. the social contract, what secretary albrig was speaking about seems imssible without alg toe,hsekeucan deyi pbl. ifou tstou pocer uds d y right back there, three rows from the end.

>> hi, alfred goodrich, us department of energy. you all, you've done a great job of expressing your local governance issues but it seems to me there are these bigger macroeconomic issues that cannot be solved by nations themselves alone such as oil prices and current crises and how do you all see the us and the rest of the international community, how can they best serve these countries and bridge that gap to foster better governance. >> very good question, one more from the side. >> i'm elliott horowitz, former state department, well bank and the community person. i want to thank the panel for a great presentation, i have not had time to read the report. on the periphery of the arab

world, the only african i checked into is the caymans. which no longer is mentioned and particularly partners with us policy. so i would like anyone on the panel at all to comment on the cayman and/or us policy towards it. >> we got four issues. corruption, macro issues and yemen. any takers? >> i think dialogue, should we just go there? >> let's do quickly, one minute answers. >> this was one of the key faces which we still have available. in countries where the public space has been closed off. the question becomes how to do it in a manner which does not undermine the credibility of domestic access area and the question becomes how to do it away from governmental

relations. i think it's more powerful if it's done as a non-governmental actors. finally, once again, how to justify the emphasis, not from a loyal perspective but from a perspective where we have these communities and what's happening in domestic conflicts in arab. this analysis cannot be benign opposition. right now in the region is contained, completed so we need managers to push it forward but yes, this is one of the key spaces. >> you want to do corruption? >> yes. the headline coming out of the report i would say is sunshine is the best inspection. one of the reasons why i advocate transparency is because it reads to that kind of behavior but more broadly, trust exists typically because those in power, those

in power are trying to solve problems that they have. they're trying to grease the wheels of their own lives or the people above them in the chain so you've got to look at how to fix the political dysfunctions that create incentives for corruption, whether that's paid policing, higher salaries, or making sure that there are expectations from outside as well as from inside and this goes to the point on liberalization , just to highlight, there's a sidebar in the report on economic globalization, times on state sovereignty, it is a problem for every state but there's a reason why arab states were and are i think particularly ill position to deal with the effects. >> i have to say this, that in many ways it's appropriate that is the victim of all kinds of meddling. one in terms of north and south yemen being united when they actually were not very excited about it but it was

pressure coming from the neighbors. then the fact that it was on its way in terms of looking at having some governance work when then, it became a playground of proxy war between iran and saudi arabia. so that is what's going on now. and it is really, it's a victim country is the only way that i think it can be described and very hard for the outside that would like to do some good there to actually get any purchase on it in some ways because it's not big enough. and it is in fact absorbing a lot of the problems that can be dealt with somewhere out. >> we come to the end of our time, i want to thank tammy for a great paper. thank you all for coming in for your questions, join me in thanking the panel.

[applause] >>. [inaudible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation]

>> well james madison is the

architect of the constitution and he might be, george washington is the general contractor. and if you build out or put an addition on, it looks a lot like more what the general contractor has in mind and the architect. >> sunday night on un day, edward larson talks about president george washington's role in unifying the country ratifying the first federal document. his new book george washington, nationalist. >> what they wanted to do was recruit washington as part of the coup d'ctat. hamilton had talked to washington about this democracy stuff is never ing to work, you'rnever going to be a king and washington was a true republican. he believed in republican vernment. >> this on-span's q and a. >> we are asking students to participate in this years studt candy video documentary competion by lling us what is t most urgentssue for our next presidendonald trump and the incoming congrs to

address in 27? our competition open to all middle school and gh school students grad six through 12. students can work alonor in a group up to three to produce a 5 to 7 mute documentary on the issue sected. a grand prize of $5000 will go to the student or teenager with the best overall entry. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 300 teachers. this year's deadline is january 20, 2017.at inauguration day. for more information about the competition, go to our website cam.org. >> the supreme court oral argument in the case of morella's santana which sets the constitutionality of an immigration law from 1952 that makes it easier for unmarried american mothers to pass on us citizenship to their children born in other countries and it does on married american fathers. this is about an hour. >> we will he an argument

this morning in case 1511 91, loretta nch attorney generaversus morella's santana. mister nader? >>hief justice and m please t court. united states constitution does n confer us citizenshion anyone born outside thunited states. >> spinning this case concerns the framework under the immigration

annationality act of952 as originally enacted r granting citizenship to peons outside the uned statess of the day of thr birth. other ovisions deal with the granting of citizenship later in life, those were opened respd or his father in this ca but re not taken advantage of. this case coerns the granting of citizenship to childr born out of wedlock abroad, siation which this towas cases make clear mother and fathers are not pically similar siated with respect to eir legal status concerning the child at the moment obirth. the general rules for citizenship at birth are setut in eight usc 14 no o. i'm refeing to the act as originalnacted. it w revised in 1986. if both parents were u.s. citizens that a child born outside the unitestates would be aitizen of the unit

states as long aone of the parenthad resided in the united states for any period of time. congress being g to be a sufficient connection given that both parents are citizens. if o parent was a u.s.itizen and one pair was an alien, congress had a markedly different approa. the u.s. citizenarent had to haveesided in the united states for 10 years, five of ich were after reaing the ag of 14. congress determined that because such a job without competing claims of allegice, that the greater residency was required for the pair to establish the connection to the united states. >> is that an argument we heard much about in the florescent case? >> it was made at the or argument in flores-villar but we think it's evident from the face of the statute as the court said with respect to another argument

that the court addressed come it's important for the court itself to look at the structure, text operation of the statute. >> i thought the governor spent most of its argument talking of the differential treatment vibrant underground statelessness. hear your argument is somewhat a different need to ensure sufficient ties. >> we are making both arguments. we did argue in flores-villar efficiently connection to the united states at the stature framework is set up that way. our emphasis was on statelessness but we are arguing and we think it's entirely evident from the face of the statute that what these provisions are after his connection to the united states. >> why aren't men and women who are parents similar situated

with respect to their affiliation, their attachment to u.s. values? there's no reason to think a man has less of a sense of euros belonging that a woman. >> right. >> we are making no such argument. the point is that where you have at the moment of birth, the mother as this court recognized in the nguyen case and in cases like lehr versus robertson in the domestic context, the mother is the only legally recognized. >> there are many cases especially generations back when the law was on the books where the mother, the birth certificate cameometime after the child was born, and both the father's name and the mother's name might be on it.

the moment of birth doesn't necessarily tell you who is the mother if there is no birth certificate, and then the child, when they get the birth certificate, both names are on it. >> i think this court's decision in nguyen and the state statutes that we identify in a footnote in our brief our premised on the proposition that the identity of the mother and her relationship to the child will be known by virtue of the birth alone, or at least will be known in the overwhelming majority of cases. in that situation there is only one pair. there's not a competing claim of citizenship, competing claim of lead to another country through another parent. on the other hand, when the father legitimates, at that point you have two parents in

this situation and whether of different nationalities, and you're put in a situation where there are competing claims. >> why do we look to the moment of birth? why shouldn't we look to the moment when citizenship is not? >> because the statutory provision specifically deals with the citizenship at birth. the statute that that its caption, 1409, with respect to the situation where the father legitimates says of the child shall be a citizen as of birth, and to support understand exactly what's operating at the moment of birth again that the child has only one parent. when the father legitimates, what congress has done generously one could say but at least offensively is to say we will treat the couple as if they were married at the moment of birth.

they are given retroactive application to the legitimization so that the child is treated as the child of married parents at that point. if the legitimating father is a u.s. citizen, in that situation you to u.s. citizen parents, and a generous rule for you citizen parents would apply in that situation. >> nguyen was more a matter of proof, where as this case as justice ginsburg indicates is a question of does the child has sufficient ties to the country. it's quite a different proposition that the to address, it seems to me. me. >> this court decision in the nguyen had identified two separate interests. one was the proof of paternity but the other was recognizing the connection to the united states. the connection to the united states in a situation like this has to steps.

what is the relationship of the child to the parent? and nguyen was concerned about establishing that relationship, that in some formal sense but also underline it, a real sense of establishing that relationship in this ce deals with the relationship of the parent to the united states. >> the problem is with the exception that's been for unwed citizen mothers, the first prong, the interest of the connection to the united states doesn't exist, because the statute doesn't require any connection except u.s. citizenship. she could have been born, lived here a day and move somewhere else, and she would automatically convert. >> that under the 1952 act. that was two under the 1940 act. under the 1952 act its continuous presence for one year, but congress deny to be basically somewhere in between the two u.s. citizen parents situation which any period of

presidency was okay and the next nationalities situation where congress said it had to be 10 and five. congress chose the period summer in between. >> so why should h it be differt for an unwed father who has legitimized the child? >> in that situation there are two parents. the argument is not that the fathers ties are less. it's not that are competing guys and can't afford to make sure that the strength o of the u.s. citizen's ties were sufficient that they would outweigh our ally's counterpart where congress can be sufficiently confident of the tie to the united states to grant citizenship in that situation. >> why couldn't that have been done, mr. kneedler? why couldn't these objectives have been served through an entirely gender-neutral language? i know there was a proposal that the secretary of state made earlier than the statute was

passed in the 1930s which talk about legal parents which did refer to mothers and fathers at all. >> several things about that. i don't think there's a claim in this case that respondent would benefit from reading the statute in that manner. i don't ink there's any question that he had citizenship anillegal parent when he was rn. >> that would get rid of the gender inequality thats at the heart of his complaint whether or not he in the end benefits from it, the question here is whether the state constitutes a olation of equal protection one question we ask when we think about a question like that iscould congress havwritten the stute? could congress have served its objectives in an entirely gender-neutral way? it seems as though here we have the secretary oftate presented a statute to congress at actually did that. >> yes, but as was pointed out

at theime, as the we point out in our brief, ile the statute on its face looked gender-neutral, in fact it wou operate in exactlthe same as the statute at congress enacted operated. no one has taken sious issue with the pposition we have i our brief that at the moment of birth, it was the overwhelming le that the mother wathe only legally recognized parent. let ome at this in a ightly different direction. we do have one parent, in this case a mothe she gets to make all of the pertinent decisions about e child. where they will live, where they will be domiciled, situations like that. with a father legitimates, he does noteen acquired t right to make e sole right to ma all the decisis for the child. there are then two pairs. >> there's a lot of complicated

things, but the question i think is, think of the child. the child is born out of wedlock. if his mother was an american, he becomes an american if she's lived here for one year. if it's his father who sent american, she becomes an american only if he's lived here for like eight years or 10 years. that's the difference, and why does that make a difference? what justifies the gender discrimination? >> that's the same rule that applies if the parents are married. >> two wrongs don't make a right. >> i don't think, no one is challenging -- >> perhaps. i accept that no one is challenging but i'm not asking that question. i'm asking the question of what it is, i would repeat the question which you heard what you think is the equal protection question at the heart

of the case. and answer that you give in your brief was some endlessly, i think it was very well-written and brilliant, but he went into this thing about statelessness persons and who have like 17 briefs that say that wasn't what the situation was with stateless persons. i guess the question would be, once enough of a stateless person justification toward this gender discrimination? there's no point in repeating that. is there anything else the? >> the first argument we're making is the point of connection to the united states, and that's where the married couple comes in. because no one is challenging the proposition that congress can't impose our residency requirement. >> wrong residency requirement. i did have just been taken squash in mind when they read it. why don't you ask the child when he reaches the age of total and

to be connected to the united states and see if the child votes in american elections and lived here for a while? why are they so worried about the child's parents? you don't have to answer that. spirit the act provides for the opposition of citizenship at the date after birth. >> lived here for 14 years and so forth. i do want to argue with you on this point. i want to know if i got the reason for saying the mother, if she is the u.s. citizen and he is born out of wedlock, he only lived here for your, but the father has to live here for like 10 years or eight years for something like that. the real justification for that shyou've been able to find. the only the only one you've been able to find has to do with this thing about statelessness the? >> we have two reasons. the first on what is the connecn to the united states which is

evident on the face of the statute. what the statute does is treat the couple as if they were married. in this case the child was legitimated by marriage, and what the statute did was me the marriage rroactive to the date of birth. >> i'm going to make an example of where the never married. theyike living togethe thout being married. now what's the justification? >> under the 1986 amendments it easier for the father to acknowledge the child but in a situation there are two parents. the father does not get to make unilateral decisions about the child. he gets to be a parent. he doesn't get to be the only parent the way the mother is the only parent before legitimation. this is true in lehr versus robertson in the domestic context. >> you are giving a sophisticated rationale, but we're talking about legislation from 1940 and 1952.

at that timehe statute books were just shot through with distinctions between children or none of wedlock and affiliation with the mother and the father. so this was at peace with all that legislation. and it wasn't until when ms. trimble again scored again scored. it was typical. the element probate code set a child born out of wedlock can inherit to it into a state succession from the mother only, not the father. allows just that mothers and children not born out of the marriage together and separated fathers from their children. nobody thought until the 1970s that was a violation of equal protection. but in a whole series of cases in the '70s the court

recognized that there was a violation of equal protection. >> the rt equal protection arguments that have been made in cases like that. one of them has to do with equal protection on the basis of illegitimacy. that claim is not raised. because responded as an alien outside, person tside the united states anlien by statute did not have constitutionalights. >> my point was that the laws that existed that mothers and children born out of wedck together and separated fathers from their children out of wt the reality of the life w. >> this court's decision in the immigration context, that was exactly the situation and the court rejected equal protection claims based both on sex discrimition and all of illegitimacy. >> that was not a claim of

citizenship. >> it wasn't but we think if anything it follows because citizenship is entering into the citizenry or the membership of our society on a permanent basis with whites to come and go. i also wanted to address your question with respect to the domestic context. this court decision and lehr versus robertson sustained a situation where a child was going to put up for adoption. the mother would ordinarily have the sole right to decide that, but the situation was, what about the father? the father had to take some affirmative steps to put himself in a position where he could have a role, essentially veto power over -- >> the fher did. this father, didn't thcouple marrie >> he did. at that int he is not similar situated to the mother, either at the time of birth or at the time he legitimates.

>> if the court thinks that the statute violates the equal protection clause, does it necessarily follow that the petitioner is entitled to the relief that was awarded to him by the second circuit? in other words, the granting of cizenship? >> it by no means follows. >> could you address that? we had a similar issue of two terms ago in the flores-villar case but that was a criminal. they'rthere what was at issue ia criminal conviction. the criminal convictions had nothing to do with alien edge, is that correct? >> right. >> the underlying criminal convictions. >> right. they were back in state law convictions. >> i take it the thrust of justice always question is, if we level up and see you for both. if we level down then it's harder for both? >> we think the court clearly

should not apply to the u.s. citizen fathers the one year limitation. the general rule, it's an exception to the general rule that covers the vast majority, the three categories of cases, married faers, married mothers, and unmarri fathers. there's no reason tohink congress would've wanted i marriefathers to have a more -- one i could thinkf, possibly, but i'd like your inion about it, how many do you think i married fathers they were i 1952 who couldn't qualify under the long period of timeeight yrs, and that's t so hard to d if you're in the army, he goes all your tive duty counts. but th would've qualified undethe one you. i use the numbers in youbrief which are brilliant of you to try to fd. i don't know h you found

ose. that 4000 number kept cong back. i thout maybe there were a couple thousand a year. do we know that there are more than a couple of thousand a your? >> i thought you said there re untold numbers. >> untold numbers t that's true, and then that's not ld. i'm trying tfind how close we could come to a gas. it's very hard to estimate, but this court's decision nguyen identified the number of pele who travel abro, the numbers are a little bit hher if not. >> let go back to 50 do. >> it was like 70 million that take trips abroad. >> the couple is unmried and it's a father who,n fact would qualify if he only hado live r a year, but he wouldn't qualify if he had to le here for eight years before the baby is born. never mary the mother.

i'thinking who couldhose people have been? may be working for arican businesses or something and there were not manthat -- were not that many that time. i used your 00. perhaps at was not right. >> the only thing were able to identify, th is really not close on point, but the state departnt told us that toy they grant approximately i think 8000 certificates of bir abroad. of those, think around 3000 are under409(c), which meanthose are the ones graed a u.s. citizemothers abroa the number of fathers who migh benefit could be far larger than -- >> were you finished? >> yes. we generally have a role at when we find an ual protection violation, we level up rather

an level down. that's been the courts consistent practice. wouldn't y agree to? >> that's been its practice, yes. the court has made clear that is not constitutionally compelled. ere are compelling reasons not to do that. >> i find one compelling reason to do. i thought i would offer this up for you and see what you have to say, is that in this case unlike in some cases there really isn't a choice between leveling up and leveling down in one sense because if you level down, this party gets no relief. in other words, you say you just a plot prospectively but then this party gets absolutely no relief. and so isn't that a problem? isn't it the same problem as justice harlan recognized in welsh would'v would have do wite criminal matter what he said you can't level down because you can't get everybody exact same benefit. hodo we deal with that?

>> several things. in this context, the are rious questions about whether the cour can, but at the very least substantial reason why the court shou not grant citizehip to someone am effectely grant citizenship to me of whom congress itself has not granted it. >> it's not citenship. it's excising the unconstitutional part of the statute. >>t would have that effect. in aituation like thise thinthe only properemedy, given congress is plenty of authority, ito apply the 10 year old tago and let congre adjusthe problem. >> if the ssues parents had been mared, would he be entied to relief speakaso. that's theoint. anher point is that our situatioto which the court by thconstitutional viotion but does not grant relief. the qualified munity context of the excsionary rule.

if we were to level up we would, level up, the effect would be the petioner would be given preferce over someone who was similarly siated except for the fact that that person's parents were married. if such a personere to then bring a suit, they would have a strong equal protection claim, would they not? >> i hesate to say what they -- it illustrates the problems of the remedy -- >> the claim is gender discrimination. married parents, they both have been, mother and father been treated equally badly. windier unwed the mother is given the preference and the father is not. we are talking about equal protection, not qualified immunity to give to people similar situated. they have to be treated equally.

the unwed father is equal to the unwed mother. the married mother equal to the married father. >> my only point was that our situation to which the court has found a constitutional violation but not granted relief. >> but not read a situation like this. not a situation will when we say there's an equal protection violation, and if we extend the benefit to everybody we can take care of that equal protection violation, we can remedy the problem. if we do not come if we try to level down, the effect of that is that the party before us who has proved anqual protection violatn gets absolutely no relief at all. >> i would like to answer th quickland then reserve the balance of my time f rebuttal. i think 's relevant and tang intoccount the remedy that this is not respondents own constitutional rights. it's third party claim there'no automatic righto

raise the rights of third parties, in this case the father i think that would probay be tan into account in ciding ether a remedy at l it sees what and what it would be. >> thank you, counsel >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. respondent's father was a citizen of the united states. holding other things constant, had he been the mother instead of the father, there would be no question that he transmitted citizenship to respond under section 14 '09. buthe statute arson fromoing so on the same terms of the mother is not based on innate or biological difference between men and women are mothers and fathers. nor does it ensure an interest in reducing statelessness nor does his own interest in reducing statelessness or enri that citizenship by dissent path onto the star likely to american values.

both of the justification for the gendered differential adhered to for filter would like to address the standard of review. there is no dispute that respond as third party standing to assert the equal protection claim of his father that claim is subject to intermediate scrutiny. and fiallo this court applied rational basis review to the claims of aliens who are seeking visas based on the relationship to u.s. citizen relative. it is true that the fiall plaintiffs included a u.s. citizen father but the court disagreed with the dissenting justices and with the point is that is equal protection rights were at stake. there was never any question that the aliens in the case were not u.s. citizens. hear the dispute is one that centers on a right of respondent's father to be treated equally to transmit his citizenship on the se terms

that a mother could transmit citizenship unr section 1409. >> i was at some point the problem that worries me the most is, asming this is unconstitutional, do you put the 14 years or whatever it is, 10 years,n both or the one ar on bot because he does have a point. you put the one you on both and ther you have comehen the parents are married, it's the 10 years. when they are not married is the e year. that realldoesn't make much sense. i hope you get to that. in t course of that i read and amicus brief it thered me a lot. it's the one you requirement is tougher. the reason it's tougr says the state departmentdministers it. how to do is i don't know. they administer it to say if you are living here in the united ates you have to lger for one you. if you set oneoot across the

border to ge arink of water at niagara falls, you don't qualify. yohave to prove thatou never did set one footo get a drink of water. nobody could prove such a thing. i'm interested in that word contuous and how it is actually administer. those other two things that are worrying me in respect to remedy. >> let me address the last question first. the word continuous i do not think as a practical matter, it can't be applied in the wake somebody would have to come for improved they were in the united states for 365 days. they would not have to show proof they were in the united states on each of those days. >> that is your answer, and maybe if the solicitor general has done a goo is simply confird that answer by saying yes. >> let me tell you how it was applied in this case. when we're in the court of appeals the court remained the case to the western district of new york for a determination on that very question. whether or not in order to

decide whether the court should address the constitutional issue, the court asked whether respondent's father would've satisfied the one continues you will. the government ultimately stipulate that yes, because we have evidence of respondent's father being in the united states, or in this case an outlying possession, from his birth in 1900 to the date of his departure for the dominican republic in 1919, we will presume there was a lease in period where he was in the united states for one continuous you. i think that presumption would apply in most cases. it would apply in this case or we would not have become for actual proof that he was in the united states on every single day. if the court were troubled perhaps that rule could be harder for some fathers or people to follow, but an alternative remedy could be too late both options on the table.

>> if we level down and made it harder, would that affect the status of people who have obtained citizenship under the more lenient probation applicable to the mother? >> if this court applied the leveling down remedy in a way that would actually equalize the two similarly situated classes here, yes, it would impact people dramatically because it would take citizenship away from people who already have it. >> i assume it could be prospective because one should citizenship, we have cases that say it can't be taken away spirit right. >> so it would just be prospected by reason of that doctrine. >> you could not apply a prospective remedy in this case because it would not affect anybody whose citizenship was governed by the 1952 act. it would not affect respondent's father, anybody who is born

between 1952-1986. >> the problem, the very inequality that your complaint of would remain, because it's impossible to claw back everybody also citizenship, so it's impossible to level down. the very inequality that we just found would remain. >> that's right. the government's proposal, the prospective remedy is no remedy. it would leave in place all of the gender discriminatory effects caused by the statute. >> but it's not just that it doesn't give you citizenship. is that it doesn't cure the inequality at all, either by leveling down or leveling up. >> that's right. i would submit the cupboards position would have to be the same if this was a case of race discrimination. the government would have to say that yes if the citizenship statute discriminate on the basis of race, this court would be powerless to correct the

residual effects of that racially discriminatory statute. we are not aware of any gays in which this court has said it is powerless to correct a case of race discrimination or gender discrimination or any equal protection violation. >> what abouthe argument in most of the cases were a benefit was extended, to which the benefit was extended was a smaller group than the group that already got the benefit, and here, if you add in married parents, then most people are under the more difficult role, 10 years or whatever it is, and it's the smaller group that gets the benefit. >> right. >> so you would be extending a benefit enjoyed by a smaller group to a larger group. >> the remedy we would propose would not affect marital

couples, and the government has pointed out -- >> but wouldn't you have an anomaly than, that parents who are not married are preferred to parents who are married? >> it does the. first that there is an anomaly but i would submit that anomaly is built into the statute as we see today. if you take the case of the unmarried mother, if she marries the father, the day befo the child is born, the ten-year requirement applies. if she raised the father the day after the child is born, the one year applies. >> that's true but is it something else when we devise remedy that deepens and extends an equal protection violation? have we ever done that? >> i don't think the court wld be eending the equal protectioniolation. i think that -- >> whaver it is it wouldn't be

gender discrimination. >> the apostle would be a legitimacy discrimination. >> it would be a legitimacy discrimination. what are the subject to, the past cases have involved discrimination against the children of unwed parents. what is the standard of review their? >> it's also intermediate scrutiny. >> have ever said it would be a different level of scrutiny if the discrimination was against children who were born to married parents? would you make that argument? >> i wouldn't make that argument. i think that claim could be brought by people today, people who were born to unmarried united states citizen mothers. >> but to children who are born to unmarried mothers, but not to children who are born to unmarried mothers. you would extend a problem. you would have this court extend the problem. >> that same claim could be brought today.

the only difference is whether it could be brought by the child of a mother or a father. i think if you go to the heart of the equal protection violation, the fact that there may also be a legitimacy discrimination going on does not eradicate the equal protection violation. the two similarly situated classes are unmarried united states citizen fathers at unmarried united states citizen mothers. it could be that congress had good reason for treating bone mineral children more leniently, at least in the case of mothers, then marital children. historically nonmarital children were a much more formal class. they were the bastards, the illegitimate. they didn't have the same kind of rights and intellect to 40, they didn't have a statutory right to citizenship. >> and you think that was congress' intent in 1952? >> i think in 1940 --

>> in 1940 you think that was congress' intent? >> i think what we've seen from a historic record is that in 1940 when congress passed the statute it was concerned about nonmarital children being separated at the borders from the guardian parents. the problem is that congress assumed or the admission officials who drafted this statute assumed that the guardian parents was always going to be the mother. >> you can conceive the possibility of members of congress in 1940 or 1952 taking the floor and arguing we need to discriminate against the children of married parents, and in favor of the children of unmarried parents? >> i don't think that'what was going on at all. the one thing i tnk is they were giving a benefit to the unrried mother. >> that's correct. >> because they thoughshe was dierent from the unmarried

father. >> they presumed that she would be, reflexive assumption a mother at the time, i don't think this is true today, but that the mother was going to be regarding parent and you want to make sure that the physical presence requirements that congress was passing were not going of the impact of separating that nonmarital child from who they presumed to be the parent. >> suppose there were some statistics that would indicate that over 100,000 new citizens would qualify or new persons would qualify for citizenship if we adopted leveling up. should that affect our decision in? >> i don't think it should it is at the end of -- >> and outside would gain 200,000. >> i think the court has to decide whether there's equal protection violation. >> do we have to consider what the congress likely would have intended? >> yes. i think what the record shows is

that given congresses of purpose, in fact if you take either purpose that we've argued was the purpose of section 1409 and the purpose that the government has argued, the statelessness purpose, both of those are served by the remedy we propose by extending the benefits to unmarried fathers. >> if we level up, how would that affect children were born to a citizen father, who were previously denied citizenship, could they ce in and claim citizenship no? >> only if you set aside all the other statutory requirements. >> which means? the answer is yes speak with yes. if they satisfy the other statutory requirements. >> and aegitimacy spending more than that, i think it would

be at first the father would have had to have sired this child abroad, would've had to recognize the child, would've had to support a child. >> that's correct. >> so i don't think -- >> are talking about a very limited class i think. i would like to turn to the government's arguments about the u.s. connection interest. >> before you do that, just on the remedy question. very occasionally this court has faced a situation with a natural remedy of something that it is holding. we were concerned about about whether congress would prefer a different remedy. in the northern pipeline case, what we did in a situation like that was we stayed our judgment for a period of time and allowed congress to essentially to do it a different way if it wanted to. i'm wondering whether you have considered that possibility

here, that we could order a kind of leveling up judgment but stay it for something to time so that congress could decide whether it instead prefer some other way of getting with the problem, whether that would be appropriate? >> i think first and foremost the court needs to remedy the equal protection violations suffered by the parties. if the court were to level up and make respond a citizen, and then stated judgment or after, i think potentially that could work. >> the relief would have been granted to this person but this is not some kind of class action. >> right. ultimately, the court has to remedy the equal protection violation before it and not be thinking about -- well, it is not trying to remedy an equal protection violation only in the future. i think that is the fundamental problem with the government's

remedy is that it could only apply to unborn children and future parents and they would have no impact on anybody who is affected by the statute at issue before the court today. >> justice kagan suggestion, congress apparently should have been aware of this after our flores-villar case, but they were so terrific. >> what we've seen is that since that date this discriminate provision was first enacted in 1940, congress has consistently reduced the burden on fathers. i think i if the question is wht would congress do today, congress has shown that it is continually reducing the physical presence requirements and the age calibration component of it so that it precludes the transfer of citizenship. >> that argument seems to me that, in other words, they have considered the issue several

times and at no point did they take the step of eliminating it. >> that's correct but they also haven't been confronted with, the las less of congress considd statute was in 1986. and equal protection challenge to these physical presence requirements was not made until the flores-villar case. >> why did you use the word today? i thought what we are supposed to do is go back and figure out if they had known that it was unconstitutional to give the unmarried woman id requirement to live in the united states, but to give the unmarried man where he is a citizen eight years requirement, suppose they had known that was unconstitutional then, what would they have done? >> i think it's -- >> it's a lot easier for you if it is now, i think. >> i think it is now. >> which isn't?

you are not going to help me if you just say that because that's in the interest is a. is there anything that you could point to that would say it's now and not in? >> as a practical matter i think if the question is how would congress remedy the statute, it can only be remedied by the congress sitting today. >> that's not the question. the question is what the congress that passed the statute intended. >> i think the edge to that, the question is how the congress would pass comment if the questions how did the congress that passed the statute, how would they really hit it today, then i think -- sorry, how would the remedy -- >> what would their understanding have been about the appropriate remedy when it passed the statute? >> i think the answer to that is they were concerned that the physical presence requirements would create a significant burden on marital children, and

that is why they lowered the requirements for the mother, because they presumed the mother was going to be the guardian and the presumed that the child should stawith her mother. they didn't want t physical presence requirements to create further burden on that relationship. >> the congress in 40 or 52 would do is strange in this context because the congress sitting then took gender-based lines for granted. >> that's right. i think if i could just sort of finished the chief justices question, it is not clear at all that the 1940 congress would have chosen to choose sober the 1409(c) and highly. i think it would be just as destructive of congress' intent to withdraw a benefit that congress plainly intended to confer that it would be to extend the benefit that perhaps congress did not.

>> do i understand you to agree that when we approach these questions that we do look at what the congress at the time when it passed the law would've done? >> i'm not sure if there's a clear answer to that. i think the court could look at what congress would you today and what congrs has done in the decade since. >> did you find any case which pports that? >> i haven't. >> to define any case against? >> no case for it or against it. >> were going to buy lots of cases when we address this question that talks with the intent of the congress to pass the statute. >> there are plenty of cases on that. >> i don't think there are any here you haven't found one and i don't think anyone could find one. let's say when we are looking at a question of congressional intent and the question of this, what a congress six years later would have thought. >> isn't that true of wescott when the category was unemployed

father and was enlarged to include unemployed mothers? is a true of goldfarb, the social security cases, what congress did when it did it was just a piece with everything with them and was the dominant person in the family and the woman was the subordinate person. so to say we want to go back to a congress that had that mindset and asked what they would have done it a little hard. >> it is difficult and -- >> then don't pretend that you're implementing congress' intent when you say with going to put in place we were talking about the remedy, not in terms of finding a violation. don't pretend you're implementing congress' intent window to what a congress six years later would do.

>> when you are remedying agenda discriminatory statute 11 up or down you inevitably making congress' intent. >> that's true b you can ask what would thewant if they knew they coul't make this is commission? that's why thought if you have to to 1952 gng after either take theenefit away from t woman or give it to the man the two principles that support you is coness hates take away a benefit ey give anybody. th get into a lot ofrouble en they take benefs away so that would move them in one direction. it would move them in thsame directn if they are just handful of them o might really benefit. at's what i asked at question. if there were millionsf men who ghtenefit, then you imight get a little worried about what th're dng, particularly since th are discriminating even more the other way against the married couple. so that's what i was intested inhe questions but i think he just said prty much what you can say abt. as to intent, yes.

>> as the number of people, all you can say is they would ve to meet a lot of requirements, that y would have the u.s. citizen sired a child abro, recognize that child, supported that child. >> right. we are talking about a very limited class. this is just children were born outside of the united states to unmarried united states citizen fathers who cannot satisfy the tenure requirements but they can do when your requirement so there somewhere in the nine-year period. >> perhaps you are assuming justice ginsburg's point that the father still have to legitimatize the child without marriage. if they married the mother they would end up having to fulfill the five year. it would have to be, are you accepting the proposition that the father has to legitimatize the jump?

>> we are not challenging the legitimization requirement. >> that's statutory and also the support requirement. they may be independently challenge of will. >> i think in this case they could be because this is a different requirement than what was at issue in the nguyen case. in nguyen, the court addressed a paternal acknowledgment requirement and said that is a minimal burden. he is not similar situated with respect to biological proof of his relationship with the child the requirement he than didn't e forward and take some affirmative step to demonstrate that by coaching the child, that satisfies intermediate scrutiny. here we are talking about a legitimation requirement. if asked historians have pointed out, the historian and amicus brief points out, that legitimation really meant marriage, and that is a much more significant burden placed on the father because the father may not be able to satisfy that

requirement at all. if the mother is not available, if she doesn't want to make the father, or is she is dead. >> or issues alrdy married. >> or issues already married. >> where is the letimation requirement? icy eight usc 1409(c). is a word about - >>t's in 1409(a). >> 1409(a) doesn't apply. this is notwithstanng. somebody who was born outside the u.s. out of wedlock all be held to ha acquired at birth and nationality status of his mother if the mother is a u.s. citizen and had been physically in the united states for one year. don't see anything that says they have to be legitimizedor the mother to get that. >> in 1409(a) it applies only after -- >> in 1409(a). and what the first words are not

within the provision of subsection a. anyway, i guess i could figure it out later. >> let me seif i can try and lp you. the remedy imposed by the court of appeals is due,s 1401, the physical presence requirement, the urt of appeals, that applies through 1409(a). 1409) is the provision that applies to fathers. the remedy would be to aly the one continues rule in 1401. this is complicated. 14 '01 ait appes through 1409(a) and that would put mothers and fathers on equal footing with respe to the physical presence requirements and then the legitimization part still applies to fathers. if i could aress the government's.s. connection interest in my time remaining.

the statute absolute bars the u.s. citizen filed under the age of 19 from transmitting citizenship to his foreign-born child, eveif the father spent his entire life in the united states up until the y the child born and even if the child -- five legitimate the jump and seeks to raise the child in the united states. i contrast the statute automatically confer citizenship on the child is your citizen motherpent only a year of her life, even during infanc and even if the mother marries the alien fher, and then the child is raised on theother and the alien father. it is impossible to view a statute at permits these results as related to u.s. connection intest. i would suit that the statelessness interests does not justify the discrimition either. there is no dispute that the statute creates the sk of

statelessness r children born abroad to unmarried united states citizen fathers who legitimate the children but he cannot satisfy the 10 and five physical prenceequirement. the statute confers citizenship on a child born ad to unmarried united stes citizen mother even if that chi faces no risk statelessness at l because e child is born in a country th has signed citizensp by virtue of bei born there. >> we are not leaving children uncovere wse mothers have not had a continuous one year residency in the united states, even though that mother may be an american citizen. >> that's right. my point is that her child may have no risk,ace the risk of statelessness at all, yet the statute still confers citizenship. >> i just said they do. the mother can only pass on

citizenship if she's been in the united states continuously for one year prior to the birth of a child. so what happens a citizen mother who can't meet that when you requirement? what happens to her child? >> that child could be stateless. >> so there is a risk of statelessness no matter what? >> there is a risk but that risk is created by the physical presence requirements that congress chose to impose, whether it's the mother or the father. the risk is greater with respect to the fathers. it is last year with respect to the mothers. it is these physical presence requirements the great the risk of statelessness and, therefore, this scheme cannot be justified in seeking to reduce the risk of statelessness. if the court has no further questions, thank you. >> three minutes, and mr. kneedler. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. first on the merits. the provision first two substantial governmental interest.

at the time the child is born and there's only the mother that as a registered is uncertain whether the child will ever be legitimated. congress has an interest in conferring citizenship on the child at birth if it concludes that there's a sufficient connection to the united states. congress has a substantial interest in not divesting that chunk of citizenship if the child is later legitimated by an alien father. there are two substantial interest that are further and it is precisely tailored to take care of those interest. >> if you're concerned about stateless children in the world, if you have a problem with the father get transmitting citizenship in the country where women citizenship goes by who is the father. >> if the father later legitimates, he's put in the same position as if they were married at the time the child was born.

we know from 14 to one that -- 1401 that that is -- >> today there are lots of fathers who do look after their children i don't say that dude perfect about to try. supposed just the word you said, take the same words, just put in father and stepmother and today why is it any different? >> it is a different. i just want to repeat again. when the father legitimate, there are two pairs. in lehr versus robertson -- >> i'm talking about, a surprising number of people unfortunately never get married. a lot of them do lived abroad and they do have children. so that's one focus. certainly your words apply for it is the mother. on the question is, could mutate the same words and apply to reduce the father? >> i think it's a critical importance in citizenship laws to other legal occurrence in order to that citizenship and that's legitimation.

your suggestion that the father could pass on citizenship without legitimation which this court basically sustained on -- >> doesn't it say that? >> yes, but this is a question of remedy. also in lehr versus robertson is the father filed a notice of a document and got notice of the proceeding, he didn't get the veto power that the mother had before legitimation. he just got to be a parrot. that's exactly what happens when the father legitimate. he's not put in the same position as the mother. it's a two-parent family. with respect to remedy, let me point out at page 30 of our brief where the statelessness is addressed. it's clear the interest that identify, that can't afford to ensure that the child would have citizenship at birth and not be divested. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. ..

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 22, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable daniel coats, a senator from the state of indiana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on friday, november 25, 2016.

>> we'll have more live senate coverage here on c-span2 when they gavel back in. and looking at some of our live programming coming up today, join us later for a discussion on ways to provide better instruction and curriculum on the history of western civilization. it's hosted by the family research council, just under an hour from now here on c-span2. and as protests and tensions continue to increase in north dakota, we'll have an event today examining that situation. it's hosted by the institute for policy studies, and that will be live also at noon eastern on our companion network, c-span. a little bit later today, president obama will give his final presidential medal of freedom ceremony.

also retiring dodgers' announcer vin scully, and you can see that live at 2:55 eastern also on c-span. >> here are some of our featured progra thursday, thanksgiving day, on c-span. just after 11 a.m. eastern, nebraska senator ben sass on american values, the founding fathers and the purpose of government. >> there's a huge civic-mindedness in american history, but it's not coelled by the government. >> followed at noon with former senator tom harkin on healthy food and the rise of childhood obesity in the u.s. >> for everything from monster fit burgers with 1420 calories and 107 grams of fat to 20-ounce cokes and pepsis, 12-15 teaspoons of sugar, feeding an epidemic of child obesity. >> then at 3:30, wikipedia

founder jimmy wales talks about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and the challenge of providing global access to information. >> i know there's a small community there, there's, you know, 5-10 really active users, another 20-30 that they know a little bit, and they start of think of themselves as community. >> and a little after seven eastern, an inside look at the years-long effort to repair and restore the capitol dome. at eight, justice elena kagan reflects on her life and career. >> and then i did my senior thesis which taught me an incredible amount, but it also taught me what it was like to be a serious historian and to sit in archives all day, every day. and i realized it just wasn't for me. >> followed by justice clarence thomas at nine. >> genius is not putting a $2 idea in a $20 sentence. it's putting a $20 idea in a $2 seence. [laughter]

without any loss of meaning. >> and just after ten at an exclusive ceremony in the white house, president obama will present the med aal of freedom, our nation's highest civilian award, to 21 recipients including michael jordan, bruce springsteen and philthropists bill and melinda gates. watch c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> a discussion now on what a potential economic team would look like in the incoming trump administration. from today's "washington journal," this is just over 40 minutes. >> host: at our table this morning, washington columnist for reuters, gina chon. thank you very much for being here, appreciate it. so president-elect donald trump posted a video last night laying out his first 100 days. it has a lot to do with his economic agenda for the country. i want to show our viewers agaih and have you react, and let's

pull out what he says about the u.s. economy and what he can do in these first few days of his adnistration.y >> today i would like to provide the erican people with an upda on the white house transition and our policy plans for the first 100 days. our transition team is worki very smoothl efficiently and effectively, truly great and talented member and women, patriotsndeed, are being brought in, and many wl soon be aart of our government, helping us to make america great again. my agendwill be based on a simple ce principle; putti americfirst. whether it's producing steel, building cs or curing disease, i want the next generation of pruction and innovatn to ppen right here on our great homeland, america. creating wealth and jobs for american workers. as part ofhis plan, i've asked my transition team to delop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our

laws and bring back our jobs. it's about te. these include e following: on trade, i am going to issue a notificationf intent to withdraw fm the trans-pacif partnehip, a potential disaster for our country. instead, we will negotiate fair bilateral traddeals that bring jobs and industry back onto american shores. on energy, i will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of american energy incling shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-ping jobs. that what we want, thas what we've been waiting for. on regulation, i will formulatee a rule which says that for ever onnew regulation, twoldio gulations must be iminated. so important. our national secity, i will ask the department of defense and the airman of the jointde chie of staff to devel a comprehense plan to protect america's vital infrastructure

from cyberttacks and all other rm of attacks. on immigration, will directta the department of labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs tt undercut the amican worker. on ethics reform, as part of our plan to drain the swamp, we will impose a five-year ban on executive officialbecoming lobbyists after they leave tomig administration and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign govement. o the are just a few othe eps we will take treform washington andebuild ourgt middle class. i will provide more updates in the coming days as we work together to make america great again for everyone, and i mean everyone. >> host: all right, gina chon. so how is he going to impact jobs and the economy in the first 100 days with that agenda? >> guest: well, i think you heard him talk about the trans-pacific partnership which has been a running theme of his campaign.

he said he would pull out of that agreement. it's with 11 other countries including canada and mexico, so it could also affect nafta as well. >> host: how -- what does that mean though for bringing back jobs? how could he do that by rescinding the tpp or as well as making changes to nafta? how does that immediately give americans jobs? >> guest: well, that's going toi be a question, i think, for him as he's making a lot of promises. but some of the things he's talking about, it may never come back, excuse me. some of the manufacturing jobs he was talking about, the steel jobs, a lot of that has changed because of technology, because of automation be, and those are things that trade deals aren't going to fix. >> host: what are republicans and this president-elect saying, what is their argument for eliminating regulations and the impact that that will have, t

could have on the economy? >> guest: well, they've been complaining about all the thinga that obama has put into place through his administration whether it is on energy andn environmental restrictions. wall street has had to go through a host of reforms because of the 2008 financial crisis. these are all things he has talked about rolling back, saying that businesses aren't investing, that banks aren't providing credit because they are basically hand-tied because of all these regulations. now, there's a question ofus whether they will actually put money into the economy once some of these are rolled back if, in fact, they are. but this is part of their pitch to get the economy moving again. >> host: how -- what is the, what's it like to try to roll back a regulation? because the epa chief at the national press club yesterday, gina mccarthy -- we covered her speech there -- she doesn't

see his promises on the coal industry actually coming to fruition. >> guest: well, that's going to be a question. there's a lot of things a president trump could do under executive action just like president obama has done.ik a lot of those things we've seen go to court and possibly had stays put on them like some of his immigration policies. so that will be a question of whether the tables then will be turned under a president trump administration where you're seeing him being taken to court whether it's the sierra club or other kind of environmental activist groups and see where that plays out. >> host: where else do you expect him to take steps to increase economic growth? where else do -- what do you expect to hear from this new administration? >> guest: sure. well, the interesting thing that he didn't talk about in the video he put out last night is

his infrastructure plan, and coupled with that possibly his tax cut plan. t infrastructure is one of thehe things he talked about in his victory speech. it's something that also democrats would favor under certain conditions. his plan has some possibly private funding that i don't think democrats would be crazy about. senator bernie sanders actually came out yesterday criticizing that aspect of the plan. but that is also something that he's talked about possibly h spending up to $1 trillion. >> host: before we get to ourr callers, and we welcome your phone calls this morning, questions and comments about the president-elect's economic w agenda and team, let's talk about who, what positions make up a president's economic team and who is he considering. >> guest: well, the most important post that we're alll waiting for is the treasury secretary job. he has his campaign finance chairman, steven mnuchin, who is a former goldman sachs banker, a

hedge fund founder or, possibly in the lead for that job. he's also met with congressman jeb hensarling who's the chairman of the house financial services committee. he also has his own rollback dodd-frank plan that he has pitched to president-elect trump. so we'll see where that goes. other interesting names that have come up wh jpmorgan's chief executive jamie dimon. there are some reports out yesterday that perhaps that wasn't actually on the table, but i think there's a lot of names actually being thrown out there. and he's trying to make a point of meeting people who didn't necessarily support him. he met with blackstone's head of real estate, john gray, whoim actually is a democratic supporter but may be in the running for treasury secretary. >> host: what about his inner circle, economic advisers? what are you hearing about who could take those posts? >> guest: yeah.

so he had a host of, actually, wall streeters on his economic council. that includes wilbur ross, a well-known discussed investor, billionaire who has his own hedge fund as well. he's in the run for commerce secretary. we're trying to see what happens with the federal reserve. he has criticized the chair, janet yellen, saying she was artificially keeping interest rates low to help democrats. he talked about possibly replacing her. she said she would stay on through 2018, but that's not that far away and is a pretty important post for how the economy runs in the future. >> host: let's get to questions. mark in oklahoma, democrat. you're up first, mark, good morning. >> caller: yes. my comment is this, that i think trump's doing a really good job in that he's got the rest of the world leaders scared about theic economy. a bunch of them have come flying

over here and wanting meetings with him, and i think our past president and a bunch of them have gotten so much to the -- too much to the point they got worried about everybody else overseas and how much money can we borrow to give away to help everybody else instead of even when a disaster -- how many products from america gett shipped overseas that's manufactured here to help them to get those people used to our products even. so i think maybe trump accidentally is, has shook up the hornets' nest to where he's making people think and getting the world leaders around the rest of the world saying, hey, wait a second, our economy's in trouble, and america's not a pushover like it used to be. >> host: all right, mark. gina chon. >> guest: yeah, no, that's a great point. we've seen the japanese leader, shinzo abe, come.

he's made the chinese, i think, very nervous in terms of what he could do with some of the tariffs that he's threatened. so it has definitely shook up the world order. i think the question is whether some like china could also see possible advantages of that as the u.s. possibly recedes from the global stage, will countries like china and russia possibly try to step in and take more of a leadership role. >> host: what about ourol neighbors to the south and north and the impact of his trade and immigration talk on theirk economies, and what does that mean potentially for the u.s. economy? >> guest: well, one of the gauges of how trump was doing through this campaign has actually been where the mexican pe is so was -- peso was sitting in terms of the currency market. we've seen it sort of go up and down depending on where trump was moving in the polls. and, obviously, mexico's a country that's very worried about what could happen under a

trump administration not only with the wall and some of the immigration plans, he's actually also threatened to withhold t remittances or billions of dollars that mexicans in the united states send back home to help relatives there. and that's actually put immigration in terms of mexicans coming in to the u.s. mainly really at a stand still. there hasn't actually been an increase in mexicans coming within the last few years. but ironically, with some of trump's policies, that could actually reverse that. >> host: j.d. in alabama, independent. hi there. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: grave concerns about mr. trump and the trump kids and the problematic area of corruption malfeasance with his' family personal business and his children.dr for example, just in the last couple of weeks we've seen a little preview of what it's going to be like, apparently,, unless somebody does something

or somebody with a little bit of decency does something within the family where you've seen him on the phone with argentine officials, and his daughter, sort of like paris hilton, listening in and chiming in. we've seen him talking about hih hotels on the phone, prime minister abe visiting in the personal residence. this is reminiscent of china, south korea and the sort of corruption that is endemic to those countries. i but this isn't considered to be an american way of life. i'd like to the hear what gina has to say about this. >> host: all right, j.d., and there's a headline in "the washington post" this morning, extensive trump ventures in india, one project is under investigation for land acquisition irregularities. >> guest: yeah. no, that's a great point, and it's something that has drawn more attention.it i think you saw trump on twitter react to it saying, you know, everybody knew that i had these overseas businesses. it's just that the media's reacting now. but this is an issue. he has talked about his children

not being a part of his future administration, but they were with him on the campaign trail, they are on his transition team. as the caller mentioned, ivanka trump in particular has been ary part of some of these meetings and phone calls with foreign leaders. i was actually just looking at trump's campaign finance disclosure forms from when he was still a candidate. the last 50 or so recent positions, and these are 2015 and even the earlier part of this year, a lot of them are overseas ventures in saudi arabia, in india, in indonesia. and these are all countries where, obviously, he could now have a massive amount of influence as the leader of the united states and how he intends to handle that issue remains in question. >> host: how does the conflict of interest laws work? >> guest: so there's, in the u.s. constitution there's a clause that a lot of folks have

been talking about lately because of some of president-elect trump's dealings so far. that is meant to prevent public officials, including the u.s. president, to accept gifts from foreign agents. that includes, you know, leaders from foreign countries. there is the question of whether trump could violate that once he takes office. there's also federal statutes on conflicts of interest.t. those actually don't apply to the u.s. president, but historically presidents have t followed them just because optically, obviously, you don'tt want to look like you're naughting ethics laws. >> host: politico reporting that the leading contender to be the trump administration's top lawyer would be charged with unraveling trump's business conflicts. peter in valley cottage, new york, republican. >> caller: good morning, ladies. >> host: morning. >> caller: ms. chon, i'd like to dispel this myth about jobs not being here in the united states

because of technology. mr. trump is making an issue about carrier air-conditioning leaving, laying off 1200 people. they're not going to mexico because of automation. if there are highly -- if they're a highly automated manufacturer, they're going to stay here in the united states, because their labor costs are very low. the reason they're going to mexico and china is because of the low labor costs, the lack of environmental protection, taxes, all that.an and a lot of these companies cannot continue to do their work over here because they're competing with foreign companies with cheap labor that's being sent, products being sent in to the united states, okay? so any company that is manufacturing products that is highly motivated, they stay here. the ones that have high labor-intensive jobs go to mexico. so if mr. trump could fix that,

a level playing field, that's one of the reasons why nafta has to be renegotiated to make it fairer so that those jobs stay here with lower taxes and lower regulations. and that's what mr. trump is talking about. so i wanted to dispel that myth, thank you. >> host: all right, peter. >> guest: no, and thanks for pointing that out. the interesting thing about nafta is that when president obama was first campaigning, hea also criticized nafta and talked needing to -- talked about needing to reopen it, renegotiate it. so interestingly, these are not new points from president-elect trump and are issues that democrats have also been wrestling with.tling wi and now as tpp and other trade deals get reopened up, president obama had said tpp was meant to sort of fix some of these problems with nafta. and now that president trump may undo it, i think the proof will

then be in the pudding if these changes actually do then bring back jobs or cause more companies to stay here, it could be a possible winner. >> host: gina chon here to take your questions and commentss about the president-elect's, donald trump's economic agenda. what do you want to see him do first?e what do you think he could do to bring back jobs to america? democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and it dependents, 202- independents, 202-748-8002. next from california, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. california has one of the largest economies in the world.g i think it's greater than the economy of france.th and i'm wondering whetherca california might benefit from the tpp and that if -- i want to

say, i want to say one other thing too, and that is if hillary got 60% of the vote in california. [laughter] that's all. >> host: okay. well, we'll take the first part. >> guest: yeah. well, so tpp the way the obama administration has tried to pitch it, although i think it'sn fallen on deaf ears a bit, is that it does actually provide 18,000 tariff cuts that's, you know, basically 18,000 tax cuts for u.s. exports going overseas. so that includes, you know, some of the products that come out of california but also other states. one of the biggest supporters, actually, of the tpp interestingly enough is the cattlemen, ranchers association. because a lot of beef imports to japan, to australia and other countries have, they haven't been able to compete as well because of some of these taxes

on their products. and the tpp is meant to undo or roll back a lot of those taxes. so they have tried to pitch this as actually something that would help the u.s. economy and actually create more jobs. it just has not gaped as much -- gained as much traction as some of the criticisms of the deal. >> host: alfred in charlotte, north carolina. independent caller. hi, alfred, go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: yeah, i was just commenting on the manufacturing jobs and the percentage of jobs that i think callers sometimes call and state things that aren't facts about how technology has impacted jobs inn the usa, not moving jobs across. .. across, it's the jobs percentagewise that are affected here. that 40% of the jobs are going overseas. mostology has taken

manufacturing jobs that we see on assembly lines. they are not moving overseas. the percentage going overseas. that is the statement. earlier, i mentioned technology has been a major driver of certain jobs being lost. 5 million manufacturing jobs of them lost over the last 10 years and a lot of that is because of automation and technology. one of the latest concerns happening in washington is over self driving cars. who could be the losers because of that? there are taxi drivers, over drivers, but also businesses that rely on fixing cars. there will be less accidents and that means all of the auto repair shops and small

busisses that might be affected by this new phenomenon could be impacted. are a lot of unintended consequences from tech knowledge he. we all benefit from some of those conveniences, but there is a downside. host: carol is in new york. caller: what i wanted to comment about is something that has nothing to do with tech knowledge he. fedex, ups, the service company which does all the rankings for deutsche bank, they're not in this country. when i talked to fedex i am talking to someone in this country. when i called ups, i'm not. i have major problems because i have houses and i have to call my servicing company which is often, which is

deutsche bank and i can't get anyone in the united states. they refuse to transfer me to the united states. so i have to talk to someone from some other country who they know how to speak the language but they really don't comprehend the language. 415, $20 on our job they all could be coming back to this country. that would give at least the lower social economic group jobs which are desperately lookingfor work . >> any talk about outsourcing of jobs like the ones she was mentioning? >> that was also an issue for president-elect trump on the campaign trail and something he's continued to emphasize. unfortunatelyit had been

talked about as much from some of the other candidates but it's definitely a concern . obviously there's a lot of call centers and other types that have moved overseas, particularly to india . and the counterpoint of that, integration proponents talk about how they actually want to create more jobs here that are high skilled working jobs but people need additional training and other things that haven't been provided as much so there's sort of a double edge sword. the lord skilled jobs and the higher ones that are also scarce. >> karen in blaine minnesota, independent. >> hi, i was wondering if you guys are thinking about auditing the federal reserve. i think that would do a lot for us and i think trump has actually been pretty critical of the fed to. >> let's ask our guest, gina chon with reuters. >>that's been an issue on the campaign trail .

the president is very critical of the federal reserve as some of his allies including congressman jeff underling, he's talked about the need for further transparency. there have been audits on bills that have been proposed in congress, most notably by senator rand paul, he brought it up i think every year for the past few years and so far the democrats have been the firewall to that but now that republicans control both congress and the white house: you can see that change. >> when there could there be some compromise on the economy from republicans and democrats? what about donald trump's agenda appealto the other side? >> there's this idea of possibly a grand bargain if you will , of tax cuts and infrastructure . there's been this problem of us companies moving their headquarters overseas caused the us as a such high corporate tax rate. there's been talk on both sides of the aisle on ways to

change that. senator chuck schumer who's going to be the democratic leader come january in the senate said even signed off on a tax plan, i bipartisan tax plan to change the tax code to take away some of the incentives for companies to go overseas. that's also something republicans what to do and if you can sort of put it all together and tax code overhaul, that sort of includes money for infrastructure and some of the companies coming back to the us and using those proceeds to spend on roads and bridges which is also something democrats would favor because they would bid as a job creating kind of initiative. that is something where there could be a meeting of the minds. the question is do democrats want to give the republicans a win that could help them in

the 2018 midterms and the2020 race? >> shreveport louisiana, democrat . >> caller: the other side of the debate.>> host: good morning. >> caller: my question is this. these viruses in school so what would trump do to improve the security in school and will he be able to reestablish prayer in the school? >>. >> guest: we're talking about economic agendas for president-elect trump but there are a piece in the paper this morning about his education views so i'll try to find that for you and mention that to you but today's focus with gina chon is economics. she's the breaking news washington news column with reuters. >> donald, a republican, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i think the policies of the past have come back to prevent job creation. i think we need to stop

taxing industry and business. it might take a while but if you lower taxes, eventually it will create new jobs. a lot of the money today is going for the so-called entitlements of section 8, government housing. ssi and a lot of these other programs. help people show compassion for two years and then it should be a lifetime ban. they can find a job, win the lottery, get married, find a social network or go to help families but too much moneyis going in the wrong direction and it's not helping . look, i'm from central pennsylvania. we've suffered a lot over the past year with high unemployment, a lot of companies have shut down. donald trump has come to pennsylvania recently over the summer and there was like 10, 12, 15,000 people at his rally, i was there. the voters had said they had enough with the policies of the past. we need to lower taxes on industry and businesses and then slowly but surely they will create jobs.

>> host: gina chon. >> guest: that's been one of the disappointing aspects of this recovery is businesses haven't been investing in their companies, in buying new equipment and other types of expenses that usually do generate growth so that is part of trump's tax plan. he wants to slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. it would be a huge change and also something that affects what's happening globally, the uk sense breaks it has talked about wanting to cut corporate taxes. the theory is don't want to have a race to the bottom but there is a sense that perhaps the us isn't competitive on that front and that possibly cutting taxes would help businesses grow more and higher more as well. >> host: that color had question about education, i apologize.

many people believe education is the key to economic growth if you educa and we have a better educated american population , that means better jobs. the new york times has a story where donald trump stands on student choice and common core for that you are but what has president-elect donald trump said about the importance of education or has that not been something he's talked about? >> it hasn't been a core focus of his campaign but you have seen him in these last few days meeting with people like michelle reed who seem to be a leader of the schools in the washington area and a bit of a controversial figure but again, trump has tried to make a point of saying he wants to listen to various sides, keep an open mind and think of new ideas to possibly think out-of-the-box for education, for the economy and for other issues that perhaps career politicians if you will hangs on about in the past.

>> host: account, independent. >> caller: in regards to those outsourcing as well as actually what you were just talking about, the tax cuts, how do we feel comfortable that some of this is not generated by x unrealistic expectations in terms of profits, in terms of growth and really ceo salary compensation mark because they really are relatively obscene with what the average person makes. >> that's been a question of trump's economic plan that is based on a lot of assumptions that economists don't believe are possible and trump things that gdp growth will have four percent under his plan and possibly higher. it has been below three percent during obama's presidency so there's the fact that it could go even higher is a bit of a question. in terms of whether companies will reinvest in jobs a

other things to produce growth, there's also a question. the last time there was a repatriation holiday that gave companies a break to bring back their overseas cash at a lower tax rate, they didn't actually invest in their own firms, they did share buybacks, they gave dividends and they probably also padded their own compensation so there's a question of whether even if you give them the sort of tax breaks, whether they will be used in a way that the trump administration they will be used. >>. >> host: aaron is watching in huntsville, republican. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: thank you very much. i had a quick statement basically to reiterate what an individual had called earlier and said regarding that the jobs that are being lost were being lost due to automation. automation came into it as part of it in a way to try to make the american worker safer.

osha was involved in that, more regulations were put in so that the workers were not getting injured and one of the number one things is loss of time from these individuals at work due to injuries. repetitive injuries, things like that. so that's where automation came in but that is not the be all, and all. the thing that really a lot of people are missing site of and a kind of missed site for the last 10 or 20 years is on these outsourcing jobs, these jobs that are going over to places like malaysia, the philippines, things like that whether the big pharma going over there and they are using sometimes inferior fillers that are going into our medication. they are using labor that is highly underpaid from what

everyone else and when you look at things like clothing, that's always been an issue and i don't know if you remember back 20 years ago with kathy lee gifford and walmart were caught in that and using child labor and a lot ofthese things have found, these individuals that are in say pakistan or some of these , they are making a dollar a day area and to them, that's big money. that's good money. but if we bring the products back into the us, you're going to see the quality come up, you're going to see our economy come up and the way to do that is, i think to try to give the ... >> host: what about the price of that product? don't you also see it go up? >> caller: there are certain things i wouldn't mind paying an additional $.50 or a

dollar for certain items, like you say on a pair of shoes. i have no problem paying additional for that, knowing that it is going to be made with quality. >> host: gina chon, is it an additional $.50 or a dollar or is it much more than that? >> it could be much more and you take a shopper at walmart that is looking for a bargain price and whether they turn away from those products because they are more expensive, i think is a question but to your other points, walmart is an interesting example. they had actually raised wages recently. we saw in the election, for states also raiseminimum wage. walmart has found their employers are now happier, they're more productive . they are working harder so whether that goes for the long term still remains to be

seen. it hasn't quite possibly bed as positive for their bottom line but in terms of the more out in their store, their productivity, it actually has helped so that is possibly an example for others. >> host: cindy in texas, independent. >> caller: actually, i voted for trump and i don't understand why people are not giving him a chance as i've been hearing all morning long , everybody's complaining but we are the people of america and we need to give him a chance at this point. don't judge him so quickly. he does speak or he's outspoken, that's fine. who is it nowadays? but my question for him is what is he going to do for the minimum wage person? i have a daughter who i have instilled that you get back to work or you go get

educated. don't live off the government. i don't live off the government. i struggle. but for her, i find it more difficult because she has one child. she's out there working. she's making minimum wage. and okay, so i kind of like had to write it all down. minimum wage will only give you about 15,080 year. minus childcare, if you have child care because she doesn't qualify for any assistance. it's $115 per week per child which brings it down to 9100. then you have to consider rent and i'm onlygiving it at 500 and she actually pays 700 but at 500 , that's $6000 minus 9100 which gives you a balance of 3100. then you have your utilities, water, just at 100 30 it will be another 1200 deducted. that will leave you with 1900, then to duck your light bill which it averages 150 which is another 1800.

usually with $1000 to buy food, clothing , anything that you need to live and i'm talking about the year so how is somebody supposed to live off back? what is he going to do for those people that are trying to work? >> okay cindy. >> guest: as part of h tax cut plan he does also cut taxes for lower income families. the problemis , that is the way our tax-cut works even with these overhauls. it really does benefit the wealthier individuals more than lower income. he also has, your collar was talking about her daughter that also has a child. he has a plan to help those people with childcare but it's based on a tax deduction , a child deduction plan which for lower income families actually doesn't help them that much because they already don't make

enough to qualify for those deductions so there are questions about what his tax plan will really do for lower income families.it also has to do with his plan to repeal obama care. that has helped essentially a lot of people who qualify for medicaid and expanding coverage. for those kinds of families and helps that lower income individuals get so the republican plan has some tax credits but it seems like a lot of people could be without insurance under that plan so the safety net that have come to exist under the obama administration, that is worrying for lower income families. >> from south carolina, our last phone call here, democrat, go ahead. >>. >> caller: they stole my question, good morning. listen, you heard the last caller. mister top trump plans don't

even get into consideration. they can't live off minimum wage. the jobs he's talking about bringing back, that's what you talk about. that's what you need to talk about. you're talking about corporations that are constantly making money, money, money. they don't care about the person that just spoke or bringing jobs back, if you bring them back, they're not going to bake $20 an hour where you live . >> host: what happened to the reaction from corporate america to the election, to donald trump winning? >> guest: he does have a lot of business executives,

former bankers, hedge fund managers on his economic team or his advisory team. interestingly, during the campaign he actually was in conflict with the chamber of commerce, the business roundtable which is made up of ceos of the major corporations because they were very worried about his immigration plan, his stance on trade so he actually wasn't quite in sync with some of the traditional republican allies that are on the business side. i think they are trying to take sort of a wait and see. . they are more in favor of the things that house speaker paul ryan has proposed and are hoping that can be somewhat of a moderation on some of president trumps more extreme policies . >> host: how about the markets? how have the markets been reacting? >> guest: you saw them get a bit nervous because so many of them had priced in a hillary clinton win insteadof a trump when , just out there after the election but since then , s&p, nasdaq, all have been up. bank stocks in particular have been up because they think that not only will they benefit from the lack of regulations but this

volatility is actually helping in terms of their trading revenue. so so far we have seen about area that is not to say that could change because some of president trumps plans could affect the markets in a negative way, especially if he starts a trade war. that would get investors pretty nervous but so far they've been pretty happy it seems. >> host: records reached yesterday. >> guest: yes, definitely. they are going higher and some of the stimulus aspects of the infrastructure spending, you've seen a lot of construction companies, cement makers, that sort of thing, those sectors go up to themarket because they feel like they will be able to benefit from some of these policies .>> host: gina chon, washington columnist with reuters, thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you for having me.

>> coming up live shortly it's a discussion on instruction and curriculum focusing on the history of western civilization hosted by the family research council. it will be live in about 15 minutes, we will have it at noon eastern on c-span2. now it's a look at president obama's legacy from today's washington journal. >> here to talk about his new book on the legacy of obama is michael'seg, the book is obama's legacy: whate accomplished as president. thank you for being here thank you for having me. >> from the book, you write this. ultimately historians will portray president obama favorably beyond the obvious citation that he broke the color line. what do you think are going to be his biggest encouragements? >> right out of the gate, it's the economy. you have to look at what he said in 2002. we were in deep recession area we were losing millions of jobs. every year. we were at an unemployment rate approaching 10 percent,

it did reach about 10 percent and he began to fix it. congress approved about $900 million of funding to stain some jobs and create new jobs, a lot of people, teachers kept their jobs. money was spent on infrastructure and other things and that began to turn it around. in addition, despite quite a bit of concern in congress, he decided he was going to fix due to industry and really the government did fight chrysler and gm, got them to declare bankruptcy and five, six years later both of those entities had paid back the $80 billion that the government had invested in them so there were things like that that if the economy had been settled, we be in a very different place right now so that beginning area i'm a betting guide so we've heard a lot of

talk in this campaign about the repeal and replace obamacare. i believe that much of it will survive in some form or other and many presidents have struggled to do universal healthcare for americans, those are the two major things. >> will break into it a little bit more but cnn with its headline on november 4, unemployment falls to 4.9 percent before the election. the election, this election was about the economy and many people supporting donald trump because they were angry that washington has not done enough for them to raise wages and have better jobs for them. >> some of them got wages and some of it i think was about unleashing a people's fears and anxieties about the economy. here's the challenge now in terms of where we are economically as americans.

our parents generation has had tensio they assume that when they took a job in their 20s or younger they were going to have that same job or have a job for their entire career. you add on to it the number of jobs going overseas. people don't have sustainability so that's something that needs to be addressed but at the same time i think we've got to figure out as a country how we can work together, not what i'm sensing now a lot of division. i think i'm not alone in that in america. >> as you mentioned, the president signed into law major overhauls of healthcare with the affordable care act on march 23, 2010. i want to show our viewers what he had to say that day when he signed what is often called obamacare. >> once there's reform is implemented, health insurance exchanges will be graded, a competitive marketplace where uninsured people and small businesses will finally be

able to purchase affordable quality insurance. they will be able to be part of a big pool and get the same deal that members of congress get. that's what's going to happen under this bill. [applause] and when this exchange is up and running, millions of people will get tax breaks to help them afford coverage with represents the largest middle-class tax cuts for healthcare in history. that's what this reform is about. [applause] >> today we are affirming that essential truth, the truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself. that we are not a nation that scaled back its aspirations. we are not a nation that falls prey to doubt or mistrust. we don't fall prey to fear. we are not a nation that does what's easy. it's not who we are. it's not how we got here. our nation faces its challenges and accepts its responsibilities.we are a nation that does what is

hard, what is necessary, what is right. you're in this country we shape our own destiny. that is what we do, that is who we are. it's what makes us the united states of america. >> why you think this will be central to his legacy? >> is going to survive because there are several pieces of it that impact all americans and i think one of the reasons you will see it survive, one, you cannot be penalized, in insurance company cannot deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, that impacts every american area you can keep, as a parent you can keep your child on your plan until that child reaches 26, that covers everyone. and there's the issue of you can max out in terms of the amount of money spent on hethcare. i think that's important and the reality is, you've got more than 20 million people now who have healthcare, most of whom didnot have healthcare .

i don't see how you can take that away in a way that is humane. >> economy, healthcare, many more areas to discuss with michael days about president obama's legacy. what do you think it will be? we want your questions and comments about that. republicans do 027-48-0001 and independence, 202748 8002 or join us on twitter. comment on facebook.com / c-span as well. here we are in 2016, premiums have gone up after the affordable care act. mediums are slated to go up more. administration has struggled signing people onto the exchanges, getting help your young people. americans would like to see changes to this law. you think it's still going to be called obamacare? >> it may not be called obamacare but it still will be obamacare. all of our premiums are going up. the reality is that most

people, the majority who have the obamacare have subsidies area so i don't, i don't think it's something they need, very difficult to study with. >> what is your thought about executive action? the use of that by this president, the constitutional scholar, professor area for him to have gone down that road, do you think that will be his legacy for good or for worse? >> he's certainly not the first president to use executive orders in my recollection. there are other presidents who did it more. i think probably in the last three years or so that he took that route because of frustration.with congress and there's a lot of other things you will have to see these things survive the test of time. given what are the president elect as said on the campaign trail. >> let's go to john was in fairfax virginia, a democrat. good morning. go ahead.

>> thanks for taking my call. i want to ask the guests, this president has done something that no president is ever done before which is when you see a leader or republican leader standing in the middle of the cabinet telling them i am not here to work with this president. i want him to fail. that's a big message you are sending that you are telling the american people. furthermore, this president's accomplishments is no one can deny, unemployment, it was nine percent. today is at 4.5 percent. i've always wondered, the message the republicans are sending is not an easy message when they are telling american people that people, they give up jobs. that message they are sending, the reality is this president, he took us out of war. he signed the equal pay for work, he signed obamacare, he

had a transition that no president has ever given to us but the problem is, this president is a black president and that is the problem. let's be realistic here and have agood day . >> host: what your thought on that. >> guest: that's a lie. i think race does matter and i think, i'm personally frustrated post election by the narrative that the democrats did not win because the white working class feels maligned, feels like they have not had their ability to move up. the working classes are white and brown and black, and it seems to me when the black and brown people complain about their, where they find themselves in life, it's just complaining and whining. i think the president suffers

from a lot of that too, there are many who would argue that no one has been as disrespected as he has as president and you are right, the republican leadership on the day of his inauguration, they gathered to figure out how they were going to make his life a living hell . >> what about this line from the washington times, race relations has reached an all-time low during president obama. >> guest: i've seen that poland people talk about that quite a bit and i would argue that people are just talking about it more. i think a lot of americans may have thought that once the first african-american president had been elected, we were going to be in this post-racial place. that's not the case and i think people who have studied american history know that one black president does not make nirvana. >> louisville kentucky, independent, your next. >> caller: i would like to say that when he is talking about obama's legacy with the affordable care act is that i think people are going to

remember is that he was not being treated fairly when he said the families were going to average savings of $2500 per year and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance and while i'm speaking i would like to say that i am really disgusted with him saying now that he is going to reserve the right , paraphrasing here, to speak out if he doesn't approve of some of the things residents elect trump is going to be saying in the future. he had the last eight years and former president bush never said a word about the way that he was governing and now he's actually saying he is going to leave himself open to be able to say whatever he wants to say about the job trump is doing? he needs to just go away. we put up with him for years and you know what? we've had enough. needs to go.

>> host: i got your point, michael days? >> guest: i think i would say president obama has been very supportive of the incoming president. he's been in europe for about a week or so and calling the waters there and say we've got to get the new president chance to show what he can do. but i think as an american, president obama has every right to speak out on things he wants to. >> joe in buckner north carolina, welcome to the conversation, we're talking about president obama's lazy, go ahead. >> caller: i think president obama's legacy is going to be one of the better presidents that we ever had. speed. >> host: why you say that joe? >> caller: initially everybody wanted him to be a celebrity. being the first black, he was supposed to show how america was so fair and it was promoting black people to the front, despite where they came from and we were going to all benefit. but in reality, every time he

did something successful, people got angry.i saw people fall on the ground and cry when the healthcare law was approved as being constitutional. i saw guys get in a fight in a bojangles because president obama was able to kill osama bin laden. people, as he became more confidently accepted, there were many whites who were really uncomfortable with that kind in the hands of a black man. people had never seen that before. not on their jobs and not in their community. and when they saw it in the hands of a president, a lot of people decided that we need to get this guy out of here's