administration, i think spending a friday evening doing anything but being in a catatonic state is really an heroic effort. i know that the panel will be lively, and it just by way of one housekeeping business, you will get to ask most of the questions tonight. you need to reach into your back in right -- pullout a card and write your question on the card. people will collect them and give them to me. if you do not have a card, just write it on a piece of paper. i just want to set the stage briefly for this panel. change is a word we have heard over and over again during the past few months. we heard a lot of it during the course of blasters campaign, and i think for a reason. -- the course of last year's campaign. in november, after eight years of conservative leadership -- i wanted to say it failed

conservative leadership, but they told me to pull my fangs in. the american people went to the polls prepared to send a clear, decisive message that they were ready for a shakeup in washington. the election and inauguration of president obama reflects a sea change in politics and policy in the federal government. i think it mirrors a fundamental shift and american attitudes. our country has become more progressive on a variety of key political and social issues. research done by the court crescive studies program -- by the progressive studies program shows there is broad support for a number of pressing priorities. 8% of the electorate agree there is a need for more environmentally sustainable life styles, 79% agree there needs to be government investment in education, infrastructure, and science. 65% are looking for guarantees

for for what health coverage for all americans, and the polls that just came out in the ""washington journal" mirrors that. on a macro level, the change in popularity level in the progressive label over the past several years serves as another bellwether. 67% find the term progressive to be favorable, partly because president obama intends to talk about progress and being a progressive. that was up from 42% in 2004. we have seen a momentous shift not just in policy but in the public perception of what needs to happen and the attitudes of american voters as well as the leadership in washington. that is creating a host of opportunities and challenges for policy makers from the of recovery in reinvest mill that was past 25 days into the president's -- after his inauguration, a wide variety of

executive actions that we will hopefully get you tonight, the legislative battles currently taking place on capitol hill, to the nomination of a new supreme court justice. we are seeing how these prospects and problems influence how we make progress. that is what we will talk about this evening. we will explore how these levers of change have shifted, how the shift will influence the way we operate in a new policy environment. our panelists this evening represent expertise in a wide range of fields that encompasses this topic. i would once again like to thank them for joining us. i will give them introductions at the front end and begin by asking each panelist to say a few words, but i will try to steer this by asking them a question at the front end. lisa brown is very well known in this crowd. [applause]

she now serves as assistant to the president, white house secretary, a position i occupied for president clinton. i expect her to be the chief of staff and the white house in the last three years of the obama administration. she cochaired the agency review for the obama-biden transition process. prior to joining the transition, she served for six years as the executive director of the american constitution society where she helped lead the organization to the tremendous growth and prominence it has today. lisa also was counsel to vice president al gore before her duties -- before duties in the vice president's office, she served in the office of legal counsel in the department of justice. she has seen a lot of variety

from different perspectives. he is executive she of staff to vice president joe biden. before joining vice-president gore's staff, ron was chief of staff to janet reno and assist -- associate counsel in charge of judicial selection. he has been a veteran of five presidential campaigns. he directed the fall debate preparations for president obama as well as john kerry in 2004. in 2000 and served as general counsel on the vice president recount committee in florida, a role made slightly more famous by kevin spacey. on capitol hill he stirred that reduce service that staff director for the senate democratic committee.

enforcement actions brought by government lawsuits against governments and in congressional investigations. mr. francisco advises clients before the committee on foreign investment in the united states and is a recognized authority on constitutional and national security laws. in addition, mr. francisco advises individuals and companies subject to congressional investigation such as the international coal group in connection with the 2006 sago mine action. more important from the perspective of this panel, he served as associate counsel to president bush from 2001-2003. spencer overton is the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the office of legal policy at the department of justice. he is currently on leave from a position as professor of law at

george washington university school of law lowry's specializes in a lot democracy. mr. overton was a commissioner on the carter baker commission on federal election reform and chaired the government reform policy committee for the obama for american presidential campaign and served on the obama-borat -- obama-by in presidential transition team. he chaired the election assistance committee review team and served on the technology and government reform team. we did not have very many people in the transition, soap dispenser court took on about 12 roles. he is a former board member of the american constitution society. our last palace is senior advisor at the office of management and budget. she works on issues regarding

the preparation and supervision and administration of the federal budget for executive branch agencies as well as coordination of the administration's procurement and financial management intermission and regulatory policies. before joining omb, she was a partner and head of the appellate litigation group at a firm in new york. she was the solicitor general of the state of new york, special counsel to the white house justic department and law clerk to the u.s. supreme court justice john paul stevens. she also helped in the transition -- headed up the role of picking and putting lawyers into the administration, so if you have any be about that, you can see her after the panel. we had a great chance to work together during that time. we were going to have greg craig on the panel tonight. it is tough in the white house counsel's office. he is not yet in witness

protection, but he had an unavoidable conflict so he will not be with us this evening, so i regret that. but he is with us in spirit. so let me start. in honor of her role as the former executive director of the american constitution society, i will start with lisa. i want to ask you a two-part question. the first part is, you have been the executive director of the american constitution society and you have now been the white house staff secretary. we know which one is harder. you have to answer which one is more fun. when your done with that, last year i think at this conference, if you ask anyone in the audience, probably everyone assumed if a democrat was elected president, he would close guantanamo. he has pledged to do that.

you might want to reflect a little bit on why you think there has been so much resistance to that, particularly on capitol hill. most of the people in the room would have thought that he might have abandoned military tribunals in favor of moving the prisoners at guantanamo for the criminal-justice process through the uniform code of military justice. now that you are in there really grinding and working on those issues, explain a little bed about why the president chose to stick with military tribunals -- explain a little bit about why the president chose to stick with military tribunals. >> first, i just have to say it

is amazing to be here and to be on this side of the microphone. it is the first time i have done it. i look at these lights and i cannot see everybody there will. it is really terrific to be here. i consider it an honor to be here, and more fun -- they are boasts spectacular. there isn't -- they are both the spectacular. everything i did with a csis helped prepare me for what i am doing now. the breath of issues that acs covers, which i care passionately about -- it is the issues i care about so much. the people i met working at acs has really transferred. these are all people who were part of the acs family before,

so i feel like it is just continuing. i feel very lucky to be able to do that. i think that ours are worse in this job. i will say that. guantanamo -- i think the president, as everyone here knows, cares very deeply about closing guantanamo, about ending torture. when you think of what he did when he came into office in terms of the early executive orders on saying no torture, closing guantanamo, looking at each of the detainees and figure out who could be transferred in released. what he has said very clearly is where practicable, he wants to try people in article 3 courts. that presumption on its own is a big change, and is working with the justice department very hard. there's a task force evaluating each detainee at guantanamo and determining who can be tried in an article 3 court, who can be transferred to another country,

who can be released and transferred. there's a huge amount thought going into this. military commissions, he feels there is a place, and narrow place for them, but a legitimate role for military commissions in a time of war, but he has also made very clear that they need to be improved upon. there are a number of administrative changes that he has ordered that involve no introduction of evidence of statements that were obtained by use of torture. they have greater choice of counsel. the burden of proof on hearsay evidence is now on the government if they want to introduce the hearsay evidence instead of all the detainee. he wants to work with congress in making even more changes, so another change is engaging in working with congress on a number of these very difficult issues. specifically on military

commissions, this is an area where we are in the middle figuring out exactly what the changes are we would like to see and working with congress on that. it has become more political issue with capitol hill. it is not always easy when your time to resolve some of these issues. it is an ongoing conversation about bringing people into this country to be tried. i think we have just done that with the one who was transferred to the southern district of new york to be tried. the conversation will up -- with the hill will be an ongoing one. having worked with vice president gore, when he gave a speech for a c s several years ago, a number of people from the prior administration came together and talked about a lot of national security issues. people are not an extreme

different positions. there are certain fundamental differences over things like what constitutes torture, but on a lot of the issues, everybody is trying to do the right thing. on the military commissions in guantanamo, the there is a desire to have the rule of law applied. everybody's trying to figure out how to do this as best they can. >>noel -- i am having trouble with my mike. i think they are bringing them up and down. you serve as legal counsel at a time that has general -- that has generated great controversy. and number of opinions of the office were withdrawn by the bush administration before they left office. there is a review now some of what went on at that time. i will ask you to follow up on what lisa said.

as you look at the way president obama has handled these cases in particular, what have you agree and disagree with? what surprised you about the approach in the administration is taking on this basket cases on torture at guantanamo and how to prosecute the people who are being held? >> i would like to start out with something i completely agree with lease on. regardless of which administrations lawyers you are looking at, these lawyers are always trying to do the right thing, struggling with very, very difficult legal questions. take the torture issue. there was no lawyer in the united states government that was roving around the world trying to push on others various practices. rather, when you are a lawyer in the office of legal counsel, a question is brought to you. the question is, can i do this

or can i not do this, whether it comes to stress positions, are putting eight caterpillar in a box with a man and letting him think it is poisonous, or when it comes to waterboarding. a lawyer is faced with a horrible decision, that has horrible consequences. if you come to the conclusion is not torture, or that it is torture, you are potentially preventing the government from finding out information that could thwart another terrorist attack. you come to the conclusion that it is torture, you are authorizing government officials to do what i think everybody rightly cringes at, pretty bad things. either way, it is a bad decision. but these lawyers are forced to make this decision because it is their job. they have to decide it one way or the other. that is what the lawyers in our

administration did, and i hope you all never have to confront those decisions, but there may be questions that you have to face. when it comes to how the president has addressed a lot of these issues, and in particular the military commissions in guantanamo bay, the president is confronting an issue that president bush confronted as well. i think most people and most members of the administration eventually came to the conclusion that we would be better off without guantanamo bay. the problem is, health, practically, can you shutdown guantanamo bay? you have a bunch of very bad people. there may be a subset of them that can be criminally prosecuted, but i can guarantee that there is also a subset of them that cannot be criminally prosecuted. the evidence you have against them would be completely admissible in an ordinary criminal proceeding, or perhaps that actually did not commit a crime. when you hold somebody was

engaged in war, they did not necessarily commit a crime. they are engaged in combat against a country, and traditionally prisoners of war in a traditional war were not criminals. they were warriors. as warriors, you had the right to hold them but not criminally try them, because they did not necessarily violate a law. what do you do with that class of people that you cannot criminally try? you can have military commissions for the ones that you think committed crimes, because it is an alternative forum for trying someone for committing a crime, but what about the ones that you do not have any admissible evidence against, or the ones you think did not commit crimes, but our people that if you release them they would pick up arms against you again? there is not a good answer to that question. guantanamo bay was the best thing we could come up with, for better or worse. what we are all struggling with is what is the best thing you can come up with, and it is not

that easy. i think what the president and his administration are confronting many of the issues. all these people are struggling in good faith with very difficult questions. i wish them the best. >> we are confronting a lot of these same issues, but we also are coming out in different places on some of this. [applause] >> ron, you worked for two vice presidents. the constitution gives the vice president virtually no duties of power, but you have worked for two people who obviously had tremendous power in the context of a new administration, and in

between we had another vice- president to is an activist in the role of vice president. maybe we could take this conversation to the question from where you sit, how do you make the by presidency relevance and accountable? are there lessons that reflecting back through three administrations that you bring to bear on the set of problems? >> we did get rid of the man sized safe. [laughter] before i answer john's question, i would like to say personally how exciting it is to be here. i had the great honor eight years ago in a small classroom

of being the first outside speaker to what was then the madison society, and to see how for this group has come in eight years is really just spectacular and wonderful to be here and be part of it. it is also exciting to be here with my friend john podesta. for those of you who share anywhere near the level of pride and joy i do with what the obama administration has been able to do in his first 125 days, an extraordinary amount of credit for that goes to john. it is also great to be here with lisa, given her contribution to acs. after four times of debating administration officials, it is nice to be an administration official. [applause]

i have had the unique role of working for two vice presidents and a very different vice- president in between. with all of them, the role of a vice-president starts and ends with his relationship with the president and what the president asked him to do. al gore said the vice president has one other do you which is to cast a vote in the senate when there is a tie vote. as he is fond of saying, every time i vote, we win. in the case of vice-president biden, president obama has asked him to be a counselor at large and take on special projects as they come up. right now we are spending a lot of time implementing the recovery act and have a lot of our staff working on that.

on the foreign-policy side we are working on issues of non- proliferation. i think that we do aside from the specific responsibilities, the general role of applying advice to experience and some insights as did mr. she makes these decisions. in vice president biden states, a lot of it is a 36-year track record and a lot of relationships in trying to pass the resolution and staying in touch with his colleagues to move the agenda along. we have faced the question of how to approach the vice- president see after vice-

president cheney's controversial tenure in office. we have focused on a couple of major things. the first is transparency. some of those things are small things. every night we put out guidance on where the vice president is going to be the next day. there are no undisclosed locations in vice-president biden's office. he has all his meetings in public. all the meetings are on the record. minstar all this close and posted on the white house blog. we make an effort to have a standard of transparency in the office that hopefully sets the right agenda and tone. the other is accountability. we are working very hard to make sure the vice-president and president's staff will pull together as part of an integrated whole and server, agenda.

-- serve a common agenda. while we talk about relations with congress, and the vice president gives a lot of time on spending -- spends a lot of time and giving the history. it is an exciting time to be in washington and in the executive branch, but is also an exciting time on capitol hill. we should not lose sight of that, either. this president has a aggressive domestic agenda. he has to deal with many topics at the same time. he is addressing those issues by working closely and energetically with congress. is that relationship and the progress we are seeing on capitol hill in passing recent bills, and the big work ahead on health care and energy and bonanza regulatory form, is the biggest change in washington and

the biggest change in terms of what is going to come out of the next four years and the kinds of substantial policy changes we will see from countries. it is great to be here and part of the administration. it is great to work with our friends in congress and bring you the change that many people in this room work long and hard to bring to washington. >> you are the general counsel of the office of management and budget. ron talked about the very aggressive domestic agenda that the president has been undertaking. in this administration, the omb has become a power house across the range of questions, not just putting together the federal budget, but the administrators

are very active -- the administrator is very active on healthcare, climate and energy. you have the cio which is implementing transparency. they even did personnel. is this just the natural accretion of power in through the executive office of the president? you have worked in state government, at the justice department. is this just more and more authority, by necessity now moving into compound the fence that surrounds the white house? what is your reflection on the way this omb is operating in the context of this very aggressive agenda that ron talk about? >> i think omb in many administrations is kind of an agent for institutionalizing

change. we all believe in change. i think omb is the implementation arm of presidential policy. you have an unbelievably hard working, visible set of creative policy people throughout the white house, throughout the various agencies, but how do you get this high level policy thinking and policy pronouncements, how do get them to move the permanent federal government? it is a long process of turning a cruise ship around, in some ways. omb is a cabinet level agency, but 95% of its opponents are career. in many ways is the center of translating the president's priorities into administration policy. it does that partly through the budget. does it through the regulatory review process and through all of the legislative clear