that one. the russians are aware that the obama administration is less enthusiastic about this, going back about 30 years. there really understood the tone on the campaign trail. they are bargaining hard, and it is still not a possibility e start one thato framework agreement could be torpedoed by a failure of us to do absolutery assurances that we've changed our policy on the east central european deployments. i think where the problem is

going come is down the road in december when there needs to be a signing of an agreement. there's not going to be any signed agreement about the treaty next week in moscow. and if the russians, i think, don't see, they will hold out signing that agreement later on in the year if they don't see some satisfaction on the missile defense issue. i think the administration finds self kind of painted a little bit into a corner on missile defense as it's simply not very poll teak right now to be viewed as making any concessions to the russians who don't seem to be particularly interested in making concessions themselves. >> i saw his comments and i'm looking at them right now, slightly differently. i think a lot of people thought because the summit was going to focus on arms control in the first day that, oh, ok, so that means that it's basically, it's a reset but it's a reset back to the days when we mainly talked about arms control.

and for any of you who know mike mcfall, the idea that, you know, civil society and democracy and human rights wouldn't be on the agenda is crazy. but to the point is that the obama administration is trying to set a policy that can walk and talk at the same time. you can do arms control but you can also address these other issue. it's not going to be done in the kind of tradeoff, we're not going to agree to this in order to be able to do that. you know this isn't about needing and i think that that was the point he was trying to make. >> any other questions on russia? ok. we're going to pull in our other scholars. we're going to do the switch now. thanks to ar sa -- sara andy. if do you have questions on russia coming up, please contact me and we will put you in touch with these two. thanks.

>> good morning. i'm the chair of international business here at csis and we're joined by a very esteemed panel here to discuss the g-8 and the trip to africa by president obama. on my left i have heather connolly who is our new director of csis' europe program. on my right, jennifer cook, and on the far right, rubin jeffrey who is our new senior advisor and covers a range of different issues. we're also hopefully going to be joined shortly by steve morrison who is our senior vice president. there's steve right there. so, welcome, steve. and i want to turn quickly to the panel. i just want to raise three quick broad points before doing so. and first, to many of the press here and the public, this really probably seems like deja vu. just a couple of weeks ago in april we were talking about president obama going to a major summit in europe to

discuss the global economy at the g-20. and i think this shows the challenges to the g-8 in general and the great flux of the world system when there's not even agreement that there will be a g-20 summit in 2010. so the appropriate title for next week might be the better along the line, g-? it might rapidly accelerate into a contrashen dough of different nations, going up to 39 nations that will span much of the globe. this has raised questions about whether the g-8 is suffering from an identity crisis. as today we look at the world, we may need institutions that have pull the approximately personality disorder in the fact that the world is not only multipolar but multiteared and multidimensional with different groups, different indispensable nations like russia and china. the europeans refer to this as variable geometry. and i think the italians deserve credit for tackling

this head on though i know back when those were a priority, it can be essential to add other nations but it makes it more difficult to get concrete action which kind of raises the second point which is, whether it's a g-2, g-8, g-20, g-39, is it going to result in real concrete action? and i think even the most generous commentaters on the g-8 have often noted there's not much follow-up in areas like development or aid, you know, many of the agenda items are targeting the far distant future for action, long after the current leaders will be long in retirement. this raises questions on current issues like the financial crisis, whether it will move beyond broad statements toward a consensus on things like stimulus trade. statements like no new protectionism, constantly saying we need to revive the doha round but we saw 17 of the 20 enact new protectionist measures before the london meeting. we've seen by chinese actions and these efforts to shake and pump new life into the doha

round haven't produced vital signs of life. obama's statements may provide more hope on that. in afghanistan we have a new strategy but will there be fundsing to match the billions in opium revenue and new troops going forward? but before we get too pessimistic, a lot of times these summits are very useful, particularly in addressing emerging issues. the example on this summit is probably iran where you look at weeks ago they were talking about it being an invited guest and starting a new dialogue and now that invitation has been rescinded in somewhat of a 180 and now sanctions are on the table. it helps coordinate in a rapidly changing world. and then finally i think this turmoil in the g-8, g-20 is indicative of a larger systemic issue as we look at president obama and others looking to -- looking to hold 20th century institutions to address 21st century problems. and while people thought the financial crisis may kind of

reboot some of these institutions, we're seeing attentions turned more inward. a recent u.s. poll had the top priority of americans, foreign policy, defense, terrorism were all 1%. iraq was 2%. environmental was less than 1%. the economy was 38%. when you add jobs, it's up to 57%. so i think it raises the question of whether these broad statements on these actions by leaders are going to be backed by real concrete efforts, once cuts into the economy are called for sacrifices. so with that i'd like to turn to heather and our other colleagues for their specific comments. >> thank you, steve. i guess i'm going provide the color commentary of the panel. and as i looked at the next week's g-8 summit, i always, my frame of reference is i go back to the to last years 'family photo to see who's standing and who's still there and who's in potential trouble. and i think looking at our

european leaders, we have a real interesting sort of set of agendas and priorities and under certain elements of political duress. i think beginning with prime minister gordon brown. he has had a couple of very difficult weeks which were obviously brought on by the scandal of the misuse of government funds and were really solidified after the european parliament elections where he really took a drumming. his popularity right now stands at 25% and that's certainly the lowest of the european leaders who will converge to the g-8 summit. the question now is sort of, when will he depart from the scene, how will it happen and the timing of that? so i think certainly prime minister brown comes to this in a much weakened state. french president sarkozy also has had a two-year midcourse

correction. he's reshuffled his cabinet. i think, again, you're seeing european leaders are making political and domestic adjustments to the global economic crisis. he remains popular, 43%, but he has suffered obviously some setbacks on his agenda. the conversation after president obama's visit there in june was that the president didn't spend sufficient quality time with president sarkozy. i think you're also hearing that refrain a little bit after president obama's visit to dresden that again you're starting to see a lot of conversation about the personal dynamics between president obama and some of these select european leaders. and that's starting to dominate the conversation over the substance. chancellor merkel was just here on friday, had a very long and substantive meeting with president obama. she's facing national elections

on september 27, but yet remains very popular, 60%. in fact, she's the second most popular global figure after president obama. so she actually comes into this interestingly three months away from elections, but she remains very popular in germany. sher visit here in washington, i think you'll hear a lot of the similar refrains around the table at the g-8. it is climate change all day all the time and she's wanting to push as vigorously as possible for some very strong public commitments by president obama and i'll touch on that in just a moment. in that family photo from japan last year you had the european commission president about a rosa. he's still looking to do his job interview. he's not sure when he's going to do it and with whom and this is again in part due to the uncertainties over the evolving european institutional structures prelisbon and then

he will be there in the margins and finally i saved the best for last. prime minister berlusconi. it just makes you smile of the you don't have to say anything else. he has been in the news at of late. i found it very interesting that the italian president recently called for a truce amongst italian press because they want the summit to go smoothly and they don't want the word call girls flittering into the headlines. i think the prime minister would welcome a slow news cycle coming out of the g-8. again, they're trying to put to rest, if you'll recall in 2001 when they last hosted the g-8 summit, there were violent protests, a protester was shot and killed. there were a lot of internal dynamics following that, following that death. and i think they want to see, obviously, a very smooth performance here.

and again looking to popularity, prime minister berlusconi has fallen. he's now at 49%. i think italian politics and domestic, they have an absorbtive capacity for scandal to perhaps other countries don't. but now i think you're starting to see where it's affecting his popularity and his maneuverability. finally on italy, again, just picking up on a comment that steven said, you know, the italians as hosts have to be mindful that they are sort of a poster child, if will you, for unfulfilled g-8 commitments and that's particularly true on development aid. will you see some public tritkism kill drble criticism, particularly from the humanitarian assistance community. they just have not, you know, talk is pretty cheap and they haven't fulfilled their commitments. again, very brief with both things that i would look for, what europe leaders are going to be looking for, climate change and the big comment now is whether president obama will

make a public commitment to the so-called two-degree goal and that is ensuring that we will limit the rise of global temperatures by two degrees celsius. again i think european leaders and this is reflective of the merkel visit on friday, i think you'll see they'll publicly praise the obama administration for great leadership and obviously a very robust approach after eight years of inaction on climate change. and they want to seize this moment and i think they want to ensure that president obama makes some really firm commitments, but they're also aware of the legislative and domestic agenda we have here and merkel's visit coincided with the passing of the waxman-marky bill. they know this is dell and -- delicate and i don't think they'll push too much on the public side but i think they will privately push president obama to make really strong commitments and finally look to the g-8 statement on iran. you're starting to see some

real shaking die namics on europe on how to address iran. you have the british being forward leaning, shaken when nine of their embassy staff in@ you start hearing sanctions where a temporary recall of european union ambassadors. you are hearing for german and italian its issuing for caution. there will be a strong unified position coming out of the g- eight from the europeans on how to proceed with iran. with that, i will hand it over. >> in so far as the g-8 meetings are concerned, there will obviously be a lot of discussion about the global financial crisis. and international world economic conditions.

there's going to be major discussions on food, security, the environment, etc. the elephant in the room remains very much the state of the world economy. think of this g-8 meeting and the participants, the participants, the g 5 and the other countries, international organizations, who are going to be part of the series of meetings that will take place at the end of next week. think of it as a bridge when it comes to the global financial crisis between london's g-20 meeting and the up coming pittsburgh g-20 meeting. accordingly, the challenge for prime minister bell sconey is host and -- berlusconi is host and to make that bridge meaningful, to endorse the work that's been done to date, to support it, to give it new momentum and where appropriate, to encourage new initiatives and continued focus on important ongoing work streams.

in particular, watch for the following four things. what the leaders say about the current state of world financial markets and the global economy, think one can expect some guarded assurances as to the current state of affairs. some degree of stability, returning, has returned, to global financial markets and there's certainly data out there that would suggest the economic crisis at least in the developed world has bottomed out and maybe some signs of restored, albeit, modest growth. but no victory laps. certainly -- secondly, one can expect renewed and redoubled commitment to take the measures necessary to assure that the world economy stays on a path of positive economic growth which is to say commitments to do additional fiscal stimulative measures, if necessary, if there's a turn

for the worst in the global economy and also to continue to work at the ongoing problem of stabilizing the banking system and addressing the challenges of legacy assets and some of the major banking institutions around the world. parallel to that series of discussions, we'll also be some reference to, there certainly was in the communique, that the finance ministers issued two weeks ago, about the need for some forward-looking thinking on exit strategies from some of the many extraordinary measures that have been taken, which all of you are familiar with. third, there will be strong endorsement one would hope and expect of the ongoing work commissioned by the g-20 but undertaken by various bodies including the oecd, the i.m.f., the financial stability board, in the areas of financial market architecture, regulatory reform, the treatment of tax

havens, efforts by thought of other bodies to address the challenges of money laundering and terrorist finance. fourth and probably the signature piece at least in this area of financial market development and economic growth will be publication of the so-called leche framework agreement. it's a document that was mooted at the finance minister's meeting and it see essentially is a document rumored to be some 60 pages but it provided an intellectual and philosophical and conceptual chateaux to a lot of the work that's being taken in more specific microareas of financial sector reform, corporate governance, transparency of national accounts, tax havens, etc. the theory here of the case is to step back and establish some

common principles of behavior related to proprietary, priority, integrity and transparency in business and commercial and government al conduct with a view that assuming people adhere to such standards and such principles, it will be a lot less difficult to regulate and guide financial market participant behavior going forward in ways that precludes or prevents a return to the kind of excesses that we've all seen and experienced and are living through over the past several years. currently. but the idea that conceptual document is to provide guidance, specific guidance, for the various work streams in, you know, corporate governance, market integrity, financial regulation, tax compliance and data provision by various national governments, again, to

facilitate greater fluidity, greater transparency and overarching theme, to rebuild confidence of all of you and us and other market participants in the financial markets, in their integrity, structure and method of operation. this framework then would go to the work of the g-20 to help guide the ongoing work of the various sub sidary bodies of the g-20 and set the stage for an even higher level of discussion on principles but also specific implementation issues in pittsburgh come september. >> i'm going to talk a little bit about the president's trip to ghana which will be his first to africa as president. immediately following the g-8.

this trip, i think, is an opportunity for the president to lay out the broad parameter of his africa policy which to date he has not yet done. i think aside from the immediate crises in sudan, zimbabwe, somalia and so forth on which he has spoken. the central emphasis of this trip is going to be on governance, democracies, the need for strong, capable, accountable institutions and i think very importantly civic responsibility, civic engagement by civil society, youth engagement and so forth and he will likely speak to his own campaign and history in community organizing and so forth. there's a strong concern by this administration that the rollback in democracy that we've seen over the last decade, countries that we thought were on a fairly good democratic trajectory, kenya, madagascar, mauritania and others, have seen serious setbacks in the last couple of years.

around that's very concerning. and then obviously the cases of continued egregious governance, zimbabwe, nigeria, sudan and somalia. but i think there may be a focus in this administration on those countries that are making progress but like kenya, like madagascar, even like ghana, are still fragile and need attention and support. parred the voice -- pardon the voice. at the g-8, all these founding countries, new economic partnerships for african development, will be present as well as the leadership of the african union. this new economic partnership founded in the 2000's, the early 2000's, was moved by african leaders to take responsibility for governance, peer review and so forth and i think he'll use that opportunity to try to reinvigorate african leadership on the questions of governance which have been neglected over

the last eight years or so. he'll have a strong emphasis on food security, i think steve morrison is going to talk about that. a major initiative that will probably be a large focus within the g-8 and a refocus on agriculture. despite the expansion of u.s. engagement in africa over the last eight years, agriculture and sustainable food security has been missing from u.s. policy, really since the late 1970's when we did do much more on that front. the food crisis last year woke a lot of people up to this issue. i think we're going to see a shift in food security and -- from kind of emergency measures to hopefully longer term, sustained engagement in building african capacities in agricultural growth. surely there will be a strong emphasis on health, education and social services generally.

building on the strong focus on h.i.v. within the bush administration, this administration has agreed to $63 million now, more than a doubling of the commitments under the bush administration, to health and broadening the scope in that to malaria, t.b., and importantly, maternal child health and family planning services. again, areas which in the expansion under the bush years got kind of pushed aside and shunted aside. so i think a broader conceptualization of health issues and challenges and how do you build health capacity overall to lift all votes and not simply the h.i.v. aspect. finally i think a strong emphasis on partnership with african countries and strong stable, capable african countries on the security, on the security challenges, whether the many conflicts in after carks the

counterterrorism issues in the horn. and kind of the looming and the new emerging challenges, west africa's become a major focus on the narcotics transfer route and that's front and center in assistant secretary johnny carson's mind. climate change, obviously, africa's one of the smallest contributors to global warming, but will be among the most vulnerable there. why ghana on this trip? i think this is an opportunity to highlight a country that has made significant and fairly steady progress along the democratic track. it's a country that in the 1980's and 1990's and 1970's suffered a whole slough of coops and instability and just kind of your typical west african state, but has kind of really pulled out of that and had now five successful elections that have been deemed

free and fair. the most recent one was very closely contested, very tens in instances, came to a runoff between both lead contenders and the opposition party eventually won which was a major turning point, i think. came in at the same time as obama did to office and so it's a chance again to kind of highlight a success rather than the perpetual, understandable, but unfortunately focus -- unfortunate focus on crises. i think the president, too, will highlight, you know, america's long standing history with ghana. ghana, obviously, was a key hub in the slave trade. he'll make a visit to the coast castle which i think will be, you know, very moving experience. cape coast castle was a key hub in the british slave trade. ghana was the first country to declare its independence from the colonial powers and the president drew a lot of his

inspiration from african-american civil rights activists, particularly marcus garvey. on the governance issue again and health issues, ghana has demonstrated that it's investing in its people. it's one of the few countryings in africa which has met the pledge which all african countries made to invest 15% of its budget, of its g.d.p., into health. and it is doing so. although there are still major challenges, particularly in maternal child health and rural health access. ghana is also a millennium challenge corporation compact country. it's received $547 million compact over a five-year period and it's chosen to use that money and craft its capacity -- compact, focused on agriculture, rural development, infrastructure and training, all of which fit with the food

security theme. it has discovered oil and it is likely to produce -- begin producing oil, not on the scale of nigeria or angola, but significant for ghana. in 2012. that's going to be a major challenge to its institutions and its mechanisms and oversight consultations with communities and so forth so that will be something to highlight. finally, ghana's been an important partner on the security front. in a regular contributor to peace keeping operations in africa, under the previous president, led a number of regional mediation efforts. he flew to ghana, to kenya, during the crisis there. and in those kind of large continental issues, ghana has definitely punched above its weight. the questions of sudan and somalia will surely come up. i think sudan, there's some confusion, i think there are conflicting messages coming out of the administration on what

the president -- what the administration's sudan policy will be. i think there's still a debate going on within the administration on how best to@@r and respond to pressures, or do we try to craft a policy of engagement? i don't think that debate is resolved. different elements of the administration emphasizing different aspects. and somalia, which is extremely weak. the u.s. has committed -- committed to helping a very weat there. to what end it's not entirely certain that government is hanging by a thread right now. and i think it's going to be a major and pending challenge for

the administration. i'll stop there and answer any questions. >> return to steve morrison before we open up for questions. >> thank you and good morning. i'm just going offer some comments on the food security dimension of what's going to dimension of what's going to happen at the g-8 summit. this will be a very prominent piece of what the obama administration will be pushing on the depofmente side of the equation. there will be a considerable amount of discussion around the global health initiative but the food security peace has been -- piece has been pushed quite hard within the g-8 and the pressuretory steps leading up to the summit. i'll say more of what that means and why this has surfaced as such an important issue. i see you have the reauto view that jennifer and i completed with an aide of a number -- with the aid of a number of other authors. you might like in there because in the course of that year-long effort of reviewing what had

happened in the bush years and what was likely to happen looking forward in the obama administration, we flagged that the time the notion that there the time the notion that there was an argument in favor of renewing -- of the u.s. renewing its commitments and making a priority of rural development and food security as a central feature of u.s. foreign policy engagement with africa and beyond. and in fact that has turned out to be true. and there's several reasons for that. one is simply the logic that we disengaged in the early 1980's and donors, u.s. and others, disengaged and walked out of this sector and is now intensively reengaging. the obama administration announced at the g-20 summit that the billion-dollar, so-year initiative, secretary clinton is expected to roll out an implementing strategy around

that prior to or around the summit. it's going to be the central subject of discussion, food security, long-term reinvestment in agriculture as a solution for that. it's going to be the central dimension of the g-8 meeting with the african leadership, which will include nigeria, senegal, egypt, south africa, libya and -- so there's a sense that's driving the u.s. policy calculation, that there was a disengagement, there's chronic hunger, we've seen all of this exposed very dramatically last spring, as food prices spiked and food and fuel prices spiked, and you had food riots across the continent and elsewhere and it was becoming clear that there needed to be a strategy both for changing the way we go about doing our emergency food relief towards

more reliance on local purchase, but beyond that, to reengage in terms of ag productivity, infrastructure, research and education, renewing university exchanges and public-private partnerships. those are going to be the big themes that are put forward, along with trying to make sure you can find worthy africa country partners that are going to pick this issue up and push on it. there's a sense that this is an area that's been neglected, that's essential for stability, for getting us out of the food relief forever mentality that we set thed into. today we put about $1.2 billion a year in emergency food relief into africa. until very recently we were putting about $60 million a year into long-term rural development investments. we're now moving to $100 billion -- million to $200 million a year that will about be going toward. that you'll hear more detail.

as another important factor is that the obama administration's building off of a surge of interest that has been building over the last couple of years here in the united states. you have senators lugar and casey leading be a effort on the senate side, matched on the house side by representatives mcgovern and emerson and others. you had a major effort undertaken by the chicago council of global affairs in partnership with the bill and melinda gates foundation. that foundation on its long-term development side. this is a top priority. they're putting $1 billion a year into development. this is one of their top priorities. chicago council pushed this, there was a chaired elite high level effort. they delivered their preliminary report during the transition to the obama administration, they followed up with the full report, shortly therefore, earlier this year, it's been embraced, it's been taken up. there's been a large mobilization of nongovernment al and activist entities.

the one campaign, the bread for the world. there's been a lot of related efforts. this has gotten strong support from the world food program and others. so we've had this unusual mobilization here and it's been embraced and moved forward by the obama administration as a priority and we're going see it front and center at the g-8. and it will be a sort of side-by-side with the global health initiative and the like. it will also be used as an instrument for reinventing usaid. within the obama administration there's an acknowledgment that the u.s. agency for international development has been hollowed out, has been neglected, needs to be reconstructed in a deliberate fashion and this turn back toward rural development, long-term investments, is going to be one of the avenues -- avenues for doing. that i'll just stop there.

i'm happy to answer further questions. >> thank you, steve. we'd like to open up to questions right now. >> george. i just want to follow up on two things. you mentioned the climate change thing. do the other g-8 leaders like what the president is doing on -- and congress is doing on climate change or do they just like it because it's more than bush? and secondly, on protectionism and free trade, do the other leaders view president obama as the protectionist he was in the campaign or the free trader he says he is now? >> thank you. i think i'll adjust to climate change and you can talk about the protectionism. .

20% commitment by 2020, but they are using 1990 based levels. take the commitment from the waxman bill and take it too late 1990 level, it is a 4% target. europeans would like to see a much more defined and robust target. you can add knowledge that they have to give president obama

some domestic space to work this process out here. one way out of this is leading to the climax of the copenhagen conference in december. cember. the european leaders cd g-8 summoned as a huge market. but they might be fearful they will run into december and will not see hard and fast targets. again, i think the message here, you are going to see the european leaders publicly praised the president for his leadership, and rightly so, but i think probably they will really drive to try to seize the moment, seize the momentum, and see the commitments. a climate change, we have different priorities. is the number-one priority for europe, and our agenda is very full. it is important, but for the europeans is critical. steven?

>> you want to talk on the trade issue? >> remember, the discussions on climate change will take place in the major economies format, which will be on the last day of this whole series of proceedings. that involves not just the g-8, it involves all the major economies, including india, china, everybody else. it is important when one brings about the u.s. position and all of this, one has to recognize that the european position, almost european countries is broadly consistent, is very different from where other countries are, and the u.s. plays a pivotal role in trying to bridge gaps and facilitate some kind of agreement, even if it is just principles short of a commitment. i am not sure based on the commentary that in past

practice one would see a commitment, maybe one would or would not, but what is very much on everybody's mind is this is one of the last major groupings of the world leaders before the copenhagen summit at the end of the year. it >> briefly on trade, i think it was a lot of trepidation at the start of the obama administration about what was going to go with trade. we have seen a lot of great talk about private trade. the question is going to be, is there really action? did they miss the window for trying to push climate trade legislation, health care, all the other items on the agenda? they have made recent statements about reviving doja, but the real risk is not just the g-20, the south korean president will be there. the real risk is the european

union is getting close to signing be fta, and a real risk is that the rest of the world moves forward. there are over 300 agreements out there that exclude the united states. will they view the trade leadership as gone? i think it is good intentions, the question is, what is the time frame and how do you prioritize? i think have a better sense that he is more open toward trade and in the campaign. it is hard to get a sense, and i think it would share this, about what the priority is in terms of his agenda. other questions? other questions? that is it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> president obama the parts and night for a weeklong overseas trip with stops in russia, and gonna. monday and tuesday, he will be in moscow, meeting with president medvedev, prime minister from, and former president gorbachev. there will be meetings with the presidents of italy and friday on wednesday. ghana will be the last stop on the trip for discussions on development and democracy. check the web site, [unintelligible] -- c-span.org for the latest.

yesterday, to celebrate the fourth of july, president obama posted a reception for about 1200 servicemen and their families. his remarks last about 10 minutes. >> welcome to the white house. [applause] happy fourth of july. we are honored and proud to have you here on the fourth. we are humbled to be joined up here by heroes. men and women who went beyond the call of duty in battle, some

of them selflessly risking their lives again and again so that others might live. true to form, like all of you, they say that they were just doing their jobs. that is what makes you the best of us. that is why we wanted to say thank-you to each and every one of you for your extraordinary service to our country. we are joined in that sentiment by joe biden, who is marking independence day with troops in iraq. jill biden is spending independence day with military families in germany. there is one girl who is thrilled in particular that you are all here, maliya obama, because this happens to be her birthday as well. [applause] when she was younger, i used to say that all of these fireworks were for her. i am not sure that she still

buys that, but even if this backyard is a bit unique, our gathering tonight is no different than gatherings taking place across the country. backyards across america. small towns, big cities, people are firing up grills, laughing with friends, laying out a blanket for the big show. reliving the simple, unmistakable joys of being an american. i suspect that they're also taking time to reflect on the unique nature of what it means to be an american, celebrating and of holding that ideas and values -- celebrating and up holding the ideas and values of america. imagine the audacity that it took for a group of patriots to castoff, putting ideas to paper

that were as simple as a revolutionary. that we are equal, free, that we can pursue our own measure of happiness, making of our lives that we will. in retrospect, it seems inevitable. but i think that it is fair to say that even the framers of the declaration, especially the framers of the declaration, would be astonished to see the results of their experiment. commerce and industry, leading to information. a nation that can cure disease and put a man on the moon. a nation of progress and a nation of hope, again and again inspiring people the world over to reach for the same freedoms that we hold so dear. each and every moment, generations of brave and selfless men and women like the

ones alongside me have defended those freedoms and serve our country with honor, waging war so that we might not need to, suffering hardships so that we would no opportunity, sometimes paying the ultimate price so that we would no freedom. you are the latest, strongest link in an unbroken chain that stretches back to the continental army. heirs of the legacy, the crowd of men and women that strain to hold together the union, rolling back of a creeping tide of tyranny, through our long twilight struggle, taking on terror and extremism that threatens the world's stability. because of your efforts, this week american troops transferred control of all iraqi cities and towns in the iraqi government to iraqi security forces. because of what you did. [applause]

because the courage, capability, and commitment of every american that served in a sovereign and united iraq has held them to deliver their own message. an extraordinary accomplishment, we know that it is, but there will be problems. there will be difficult days ahead. i want to say this to all of you, you have done everything that has been asked to view. the united states of america is proud of you, i am proud to be your commander-in-chief, this fourth of july i renew my pledge to each and every one of you -- as long as i have that in measurable responsibility, you will always have the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. your family will always be a prepared -- priority of michelle

and myself, remaining in our hearts and minds. when our service members return home, it will be with the care promised by family members. your generations of service makes our annual celebration of this day possible. your service proves that our founding ideals remain just as possible in the third century as a nation as they did on that first fourth of july. your service guarantees the united states of america shall forever remain the last best hope for freedom. happy fourth of july, everybody. and right now we are going to pay some tribute your service with a few songs that you know, from the marine band.

[cheers] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [cheers] ♪ >> at the fourth of july, everybody. god bless you. god bless the fourth of jim --

got less united states of america. -- god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> how is seized and funded? >> the u.s. government? >> i think some of it is raised by the government? i do not know. >> the government? >> donations? >> me, my tax dollars. >> how is seized and funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as part of a government service -- public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> this next segment is from " washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is paul keckley, executive director of the deloitte center for health solutions. the center just recently completed the 2009 survey of health care consumers. what are some of the key findings? guest: well, three major areas.

one is that people are responding to the economic realities with the lady cares, making changes in doctors, insurance plans and hospitals. -- with delayed the care. there's clear evidence that the behavior has changed as result of the economy. second, this nineis -- this is not homogenous market. people are behaving in a variety of ways. fewer than 10% have decided that traditional western medicine is not the way. i want a different approach. we have found groups going after low-priced only. third, in the context of health reform, a lot of mixed feelings. a lot of sensitivity to pay

more tax and yet recognizing the need for people have insurance and taxes. it is an interesting mix of opinions about health reform. host: according to the survey, nearly 40% of consumers have expressed discontent with the status quo. what is it that they are not happy with? guest: the center has responsibility in other parts of the world. we are doing surveys in europe, canada, and other places. we find people in other systems because they are accustomed to those systems are more satisfied with their system than people in the u.s. with our system. the source of that discontent tends to be poor service.

been on hold, long waits to get bills paid. or why the insurance company does not cover something. a lack of information is a common frustration. third, because more and more people are responsible for first-dollar coverage, co-pays, deductibles, there is the question of cost which is a new thing in our system over the past dozen years. the fact that people have to think about cost is new. host: a quarter of consumers have skipped care when they were sick or injured. two out of five have done so because they simply could not afford it. guest: right, it is clear that increasingly individuals are making judgments as to whether

taking pills only half as frequently as they should, skipping routine care, routine preventive health -- even looking for high deductible insurance programs and hoping they do not have to use it. it is clear that the economy is having an impact. host: if you want to get involved paul keckley in a, you can call us. -- if you want to get involved in the conversation. e-mail us or twitter us, as well. our first call comes from houston on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, when wesley clark ran for president in 2004 he said he slowly came to the conclusion that universal

single-pear was the only way to go. his conclusion was based on his determination that the administrative cost of private health insurance are 10 times that of the medicare system. since we have more than 45 million uninsured people we need those savings to be able to cover everyone. my own experience to back that up, my husband and i are very healthy. last year we paid $15,000 for preventative maintenance and a very high deductible insurance through blue cross blue shield. those costs kept going up and up. this year my husband is on medicare. later this year i also will be going on medicare. it is much more affordable. i do not see how we can afford to carry insurance companies on our backs. i am very discouraged that some democrats and not many

republicans seem to be determined to pander to the insurance companies. they are more concerned about their support, the financial support when they run for election. host: banks. your response? guest: 1 of the areas where the center is focused this on just the data. to begin, when any candidate alleges that the cost of administration of the commercial health care are 10 times higher than medicare -- that is just not true. the costs of medicare, depending on how much you include in those costs, how much as federal overhead compared to what is in the program, versus commercial

health insurance. commercial plans to have some cost above that of medicare, but it is not 10 times. the single-payer concept is not well-understood. when people understoounderstandl coverage, that could mean that everyone has an insurance program, but it does not mean necessarily that there is a single payer. there could be multiple plants where you are injured and then you are buying from a system of care where you have public and private provider options. rob, there is a really interesting set of terms floating around that mean different things to different people. lots of confusion. unfortunately, a lot of very provocative rhetoric using those terms. we need to step back and understand what we mean host:

tells a little bit about the deloitte center for health solutions. guest: it is an effort to do studies of trends and issues that are important in public policy and in the private sector. to do that in a transparent ploy. we are not funded by industry. we are funded wholly by deloitte. anything that we do is open to the public and we welcome that scrutiny. host: you can find at information act deloitte.com. john, on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. i recently applied for health care last year and a former governor mitt romney. i actually like it because i did not have coverage producer.

now i am forced to partake in a different health plans offered. by mandatory sign ups they have lower the cost to the competition. i have a single-payer plan for myself. it is very reasonable. there are pros and cons. it is not a top-of-the-line plan, but at least it covers me for catastrophic which is good. but i hope that the come up with something very reasonable for the united states for self- employed folks and working-class folks to make it affordable for all americans.

host: are you on a train? caller: no, my son is on the computer. guest: you know, john is really in a state where an individual mandate was elected a few years back as well as an employment. israel and the singapore also have an individual mandate. we can look at other parts of the world to see that. 98% of people in massachusetts are covered. this concept of health insurance exchange being discussed -- there's a program called the connector in massachusetts that those the same. they have tried a medical home there. many people look to massachusetts as a pilot for national health reform. the good news is that large numbers, 98% are covered. the bad news is that the state is under water on it financially. gov. patrick has a huge deficit

he has to overcome. now their turn to figure how to pay for it. good news, bad news. host: back to the phones on our line for independents. caller: i was wondering about the same thing like the other massachusetts resident. i have medicare myself. 80% is paid. 20% -- you have to pay for your glasses, your nerve pill, stuff like that is not covered. on top of it, of like to hear from others from massachusetts on how they feel about this plan. i do not hear too much bad at all. guest: here is an interesting discussion you are not hearing right now about health reform.

what constitutes the basic benefit? if for instance for a normal delivery without complication. mom is not likely to have a problem due to various risk factors, it is four visits adequate? is one of ultrasound enough deaths in this country we have -- is one of ultrasound in up? in this country we have a preference for anything and everything that can be done should be done. we know that outcomes is often unrelated to how much is done. it is whether the right thing is done. the discussion that will be acting pretty intense of the next few weeks will be around this concept of comparative effectiveness. are we doing the right things? are we doing surgery that should not be done? but because we can have that pay for we do? are we having diagnostic imaging than where we should not

banks for example, four lower back pain? in massachusetts we kind of have a laboratory. anything alike could get covered, but maybe they're there -- maybe there are things that should not be. host: in the senate they're looking at reform. the house has issues they are trying to put forward. republicans have it their own ideas. what do you see coming out of all this that the president may eventually sign after the august recess and after congress has had a chance to work through all this? guest: every day we learn something else. so, when senator kennedy -- and his affordable health courses act came out the first of june, we discovered it only covered 16 million of the under-insured and uninsured and its price tag was north of $1.20 trillion.

with the president is likely to do is go back to his fundamental goals which were one, reduce costs. two, we have to cover everyone. the trick is how fast? how the do that while the economy is recovering? you can address tarp, the banking system, the auto industry, and others? i suspect you have an individual mandate of some sort. i suspect you will have an employer pay or play provision of some sort. i think the comparative effectiveness platform that senator baucus and senator conrad introduced as a bill a few weeks back will be part of this. the public option is real part of this. senator conrad has proposed a co-op model. senator baucus wants a bipartisan bill. does that mean that the public

option is off the table because republicans have drawn a line in the sand around it? probably too soon to tell. the next eight weeks will be so intense that by the time folks come back around labor day we will know. host: back to the phones. luna pier, mich. on the line for democrats. caller: hello, i do not really have a question, but a quick story. on june 12 i had a heart attack. i am 47 years old. i went into the hospital and the put a stint in my heart. shortly after they put that stint in the order read they had this stint blow and have massive bleeding and nearly dead. five transfusions leader in two weeks in hospital by an hon. the sad part is that i have no health insurance.

now i am facing a 150,000 of the bill i cannot afford to pay. i want a public option. i'm very disappointed that they took single-payer off the table. a lot of public option in to be able to afford health insurance and take care of our family. that is all i really have to say. host: if there had been a single-payer option how much of that reduce your cost? caller: probably vary significantly, i am hoping. if it is anything like they have on capitol hill, for congress and the senators, i think it would reduce it will over half. i would have very little out of pocket expense. guest: yes, this really gets into one of the technical areas of reform. that is how we risk write populations.

proposals range from having the states be assigned various risk pools and other been dedicated moneys to that. we cannot expect people like this to absorb that. half of the involuntary bankruptcy is in the u.s. are the result of medical debt and most is the result of occasions like this for it is an and anticipated event. you will see catastrophic coverage that the state will probably manage handed these cases will fall under that. host: allentown, pa., go ahead. caller: i was calling to ask about your input on the result of the hmo's and health care cost. as well as -- what happened to those hillburton hospital standard for you can get coverage in have the infrastructure we are lacking today? guest: to some that may not

recall, hillburton was an act that allowed every community to have a hospital. we had about 7200 hospitals in the u.s. and are now down to about 5800. there are two reasons why it went away. one is that technology was latinos do things on an outpatient@@@@ not the number of beds that correlate to better health. what we expect is more discussion of the resource allocation. how the reorganized hospitals, doctors? host: paul keckley is the

executive director of deloitte center for health solutions. he was previously the chairman of the board of all large california dental practice management company and the ceo of enterprise business management solution firms in the principle of the keckldey group and had his b.a. from lipscomb university and a doctorate from the ohio state university. host: next, corrigan on our line for independents. caller: -- oregon. caller: three years ago about a business and provided medical insurance at less than $50 per person for all my employees. to do the same policy is in excess of $500 per person know when they're made a 1000% increase on their salaries, but

i bet you that the profits went up by that much guest: thank you. there is no doubt that when you track the compound growth of health costs it has exceeded cpi in costs of living in various indicators by about 3% for about 30 years. there are three big reasons why health costs have gone up. one is the incentives of our system reward doing more. it is what we call supply-driven demand. because we can, we do. second, technology is redundant in our country when we add a scan in that committee we did not reduce the numbers of ct scans and mri's that are done, it is additive technology. nine of the three reasons people are in hospitals is the result

of chronic conditions that are not managed. some would say that it is the problem of individuals. that is partly to. we have1% of the city in this country. but that is also the reason we have plenty of specialists. -- that is partly true. the incentives aligned? is technology deployed inappropriately? are people's lifestyles changing for the healthier? that is part of the reason that your premiums have gone up. host: more results from the 2009 consumer survey. it was conducted by the deloitte center for health solutions. three out of 10 switched medications in the past year. guest: medication therapy management, mtm, rob, it's a tough part of the equation. most people do not take their meds as director. when the doctor prescribes amid

what they probably know is if you got it refilled only if they are the one of 10 doctors if you have an electronic medical record and there is some information returning directly to the doctor that says that rob for got his prescription filled and 30 days, 60 days, 90 days later. people routinely choose not to take their medicine. one of four people directed to take meds more than 30 days will actually follow that regimen. is there any incentive in the system for the doctor to make sure you take your meds? not really. is there an incentive in your interests with c-span to take you meds as directed, or to work out, eat right, or do other things? guest: that is part of this incentive problem. host: ohio, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning.

could you please address the effects of the mutual limitation of the insurance companies a number of years ago? guest: i suspect you are referring to some insurance companies that are technically not for profit. there are 1300 insurance companies in the country. ownership berries. -- a varies. we know that most of the blue cross plans most people are familiar with are taxable, not- for-profit in new there is a different model for blue cross plans than for others. there is no correlation of which i am aware for the profitability of the plan is specifically

related to their ownership status. it can vary widely. same as profitability for such hospitals. host: here is a message from twitter. true? guest: it is true. medicare and medicaid represent 98 million people in the u.s. today. medicare pays about 94% of cost. medicare calculates what it costs in this community for care and pays doctors and hospitals 94% of that cost. medicaid pays even less. 88-91% of cost.

commercial insurance premium. commercial insurance will pay anywhere from 125-135% of cost. self-pay individuals will also pay some of the burden. host: grand rapids, mich. on the line for independents. caller: boy, you are saying that so much and i am sitting here just steering. first of all, if you are talking about more and more management. we are too confused. we are consumers, but you know what? we just need our health care before. we do not need insurances. i do not need a doctor to manage my prescriptions. this is a free country.

this is the problem, sir. when you talk about our problem with profits and capping this -- how about cap the profit, not the service. just cap profits. guest: $7,400 per person per year it is a spend. it is a big, messy system. some would say that capping profits is one route. some would say single-payer. everyone is frustrated. back to your first comment, rob. cluster of tin grade the system d or f. it is exactly that sentiment. we're not getting the money -- we're not getting value. i think what policy-makers may not appreciate is when people

say we want to protect the system. those people are not saying protect the >> unfortunately, i do not think we are done. we are not out of the woods. we have had some tough job market reports since december of 2007, when the recession began, the rate of job loss has slogan said ridley, fortunately, since the president has been in office. i would imagine that it might push into the double digits by the time we get to the peak of this. >> see the entire interview,

today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on." -- on "newsmakers." congress as much business to complete before leaving for their argus resources -- recess. the house returns on agriculture spending on tuesday. mandatory programs like food stamps, farm subsidies, and rural development, as well as a bill for small business development, will all be brought before the board. work on legislative branch spending for 2010 will have amendments at 5:30 eastern. then they will want homeland security spending. the senate health committee will continue to mark up their version of the health care bill. al franken is scheduled to meet with harry reid tomorrow. live coverage of the senate, as always, on c-span 2.

this is c-span's "america and the court." next, a look at the life and career of soap -- supreme court nominee, sonia sotomayor. first, an old schoolmate from the bronx in new york. >> sergio, how old were you when you first met sonia sotomayor? >> 13 years old?

freshman in high school. cardinal high school in the bronx. >> what was that like? >> i do not want to say it was a typical high school, because it was not. it was a catholic high school, part of the archdiocese of new york. it was a pretty good education. it was interesting in that we all had to wear uniforms. that is the one big thing that i still remember about it. i lived in east harlem. i have to take the train in a uniform, going to the south bronx, that was interesting. it was a great school, i have great memories about it. >> how old was she? >> one year older.

>> how did you meet? >> through a mutual friend. his name was canned. he actually lived on the other side of 117 street, where i grew up. he was a junior at cardinal spellman. i came in as a freshman. interestingly enough, we all went, the three of us. >> what did you think of her at first? >> someone who was very focused, studious. not shy at all about giving an opinion about a number of different things. someone who was awful as well. someone who really thought first before speaking. someone that i thought was poised. someone that you could look up to. i thought of her as a mentor.

when i was thinking about where to go to school, she was very helpful in terms of the guidance she provided. >> what would cause someone like her to be a mentor? someone to be aspired to. >> her life and mine did paralleled in so many ways. many of the things that we were both looking to accomplish their, cultures, all of that, were very much in line. the family values that we shared. this was someone who took

academics quite seriously, as i did. because of that, all of that made her a figure that i thought was approachable. i felt comfortable speaking with her. i really respected what she had the offer. >> so that we can kind of understand how this filled in, how many minorities might there have been in that community? >> if you take a combination of the african-american and hispanic, -- populations, it was about 10% of the student body. >> in total? >> right. >> what impact did that have in that period of time in the american life? >> for us it was impact will. clearly it was very different from the prince and experience, which we can talk about later. .

did you ever talk about discrimination? >> yes. at that time, we talked a lot about issues such as state could 4 puerto rico. we talked about issues happening in these civil rights movement. the other issue at the time was what was happening in south africa. later, at princeton, that

became a larger issue when we talked about the kind of endowments' the universe was involved in. -- the university was involved in. there was a real sense about what the major issues of the day work. >> the teachers were nuns? >> they were half lay teachers, and the other half religious order. it was equally split among priests, brothers, and nuns. >> was a fairly strict environment? >> there was no political correctness at the time. we had a dean of discipline, although, at that point, they

were imposing. they never needed to do very much because everyone came to school with the frame of mind that they were very serious about it. when you have to think about a situation where almost all of us were either middle class or poor backgrounds, as a result of that we took this seriously. >> you were both in student government? >> yes. >> how did that impact you? >> i followed suit as a freshman, and became a senator as well and was elected vice president in my senior year. we also were involved in a

debate and public speaking team. that gave me the a little bit of an on track as well -- entre as well. >> you grew up in harlem? when did you come to the u.s.? >> when i was 7. >> how did that play into school? were there multilingual sessions going and in school? >> it was appalling. the skills around english had to be developed before you went on to high school. there was a pretty regress entrance exam to get into spellman.

at that point, we had to be proficient in the english language. >> were you elected to your senate seat? >> yes. we had very small campaigns, but we made ourselves known. >> do you remember those campaigns? >> and no, i don't really. as a typical high-schooler, i don't really remember. >> judge sotomayor -- by the time you had gotten to know her, she had diabetes for many years. how did that impact your day to day life. ?

>> i was not aware that she was a diabetic until we were in college. this was something that she kept close to the vest. it wasn't something that she shared very openly. in many ways, it parallels who she is. in many ways she is private and reserved, and in other ways, if someone wasn't looking for excuses, and i think that is the one quality i think for us together. despite all the trepidations and challenges that life in the south bronx and harlem bring, she was not one to make excuses. >> how did you find out? did you remember? >> i was just kind of shocked to

hear it. >> when you went to princeton, was there ever a time which you have to do certain things in order to take care of the diabetes? >> i did not see that part of it. >> you are on your way to college. you move into princeton following her. what impact did she have on that? >> i think she had a fair impact on a couple of different levels. this is someone who i knew very well in high school. this is someone who went to the same high school, who i could identify with. when she gave me an opinion about what it was she did her freshman year, it resonated with me. in many ways, the same sorts of

things that she is talking about now about her experience parallels my own experiences. can't tell you that -- i can tell you that is a phenomenal school. one of the things that she and i had to do was catch up somewhat with respect to things like reading and writing skills, particularly as a freshman. >> how did you do that? dominoes to the grindstone, same way she did. -- nose to the grindstone. as a parallel to her, no excuses. this was not about claiming -- things had to get done and life

went on. when you think about how it was that she started from that point, prime prize it is a tremendous story. she was given the highest academic standing in the class. princeton that use trying to make sure that the student body raises a lifestyle around service. the school takes it seriously. you have to have a pretty high gpa in order to be considered.

and the person who is the winner is on top of that. >> from my school on through princeton, it was done during the war. how did that play out in the relationship you were in? >> it had a big impact. at that point, there was no voluntary draft. certainly in my case, it was trying to be vigilant around that verses school, verses my own sense of what the war was like. at princeton, and there was a fair amount of discussion

around, what were we doing there, and how is it that we would advance at a place like vietnam's? ? >> did either of you become involved in any type of protest movement? >> in high-school, no. i think that was a little more squelched at a place like cardinal spellman. at princeton, yes. and also around other issues as well. >> what others? >> issues around south africa and apartheid. >> how did that play itself out?

were you having discussions with teachers or out demonstrating? >> there was some degree of demonstration. in addition to which, there was a building on campus that was named at that point, that was the focus all all of the ethnic --. a number of us spent a lot of time there, and also engaged teachers and administrators around some of the complex that we thought were very important. >> you mentioned that the minority were around 10%. >> my guess is it was around 6%.

>> what about discrimination at princeton? >> overt discrimination, and zero. covert discrimination, there were some traces of that. i want to be clear. princeton, to me was a phenomenal learning experience both academically and sort of life. i met my wife a princeton. we continue to go back to school. we are both close to the school now. at that time, it was an atmosphere where women had just been admitted in the early '70s. i went to school there between 1963 and 1977. sonia was there a year earlier.

-- i went to school there between 1973 and 1977. in many ways, there was a little bit of push pull situation where the school felt, we have made certain strides because we have now opened the doors to up to now we have not opened. those of us on the other side wanted there to be more changes. maybe the pace of change we thought was slow. aside from the issues that we talked about, these issues were around faculty. we wanted to make sure there was a representative number of faculty. as the student body of color group, we wanted a faculty of color as well. we made those feelings known.

>> for recreation, did you party together? did you study together and play games together? >> a little bit of everything. we brought with us all of the culture of new york, of our requested neighborhoods. i think that was a big connection point. we obviously talked a little bit about what was going on. we also laughed and joked and interacted with different people from all over the world. and that was an interesting experience. we were able to experience a broader experience of others.

sometimes that was a good experience, sometimes it was not. it was a good time. >> by that time you were in your early 20s. many people of color had been totally integrated by 21 or 22. it was different then. >> very much so. it was a transition from s a from spellman, that was good and academically competitive, it did not compare to boarding school preparation. even the smallest things, we're in a boarding school for interest -- instance, it you do your laundry at an early age and open a checking account at an early age.

all of those men 20 needed to catch up on different things. the other thing that happened at that point in princeton is because the population of color was so small, forced us to bind as the committee. some of my very best friends continue to be people i graduated with. we share those experiences as well. >> when did you separate, and how have you gotten back together sense? >> we separated when week -- she graduated. >> then she got married? >> yes.

there was a point where i thought i was going through the legal path as well. many years later, i decided not to. it was at that point that our careers went in different ways and it became difficult to keep in touch. i thought a lot of her accomplishments through the press, and admired her from afar. >> you ended up at goldman sachs? >> i was there for 21 years. i came to goldman in 1985, and i was a sales person on the trading floor covering the central bank around the world. i headed up what was called the international sales desk for a number of years.

i became a managing director and i joined a group of management strategists. i consider lots of folks they're good friends. i left in 2006. >> what are you doing now? >> i am a chairman and ceo of a funding group, and also a college adviser. >> have you talk to sonia sotomayor? >> off and on. >> we continue not to look at the life of supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. >> professor, when did you first

meet sonia sotomayor? >> in 1976. we were friends with a common friends. we met on a social occasion. a group of law students who were getting acclimated to a new situation. >> what did you have in common? >> we shared an interest in social justice. we both came to law school to advance that as a personal goal and discovered that was a common bond. we enjoyed china and figure out what was going on. we were trying to analyze the culture.

it was an exciting place. we had people who were very serious about themselves and their futures. there were many discussions about the roadblock as an agent of change, and also as an agent of stability. we were also -- i would say the second wave of women, there was very few faculty that were women. we were also navigating our way, and were also newcomers. that was part of the journey. i came from brown university.

>> did she ever talk about how the transition was made? >> i can't say that was part of the discussion. we were focused on the work we were doing. there was some talk about writing an article for the law journal weeklies, and decided to play a leadership role. there was a lot of discussion about that. >> what was her role? >> she was an editor of the law journal, which meant that she works on articles and also wrote an article for the law journal, that was published. >> why have a law journal? who reads it and what is it for? >> that is a good question. the idea that we are trying to

create knowledge to inform the practitioners of law, judges, policy makers and other researchers, lot students are also entering into the field, and these are the opportunities to allow law students to express their view and use the research about a pressing issue of >> that date> do you remember any of her articles? >> i don't remember it with great precision, but it was on pr -- puerto rico, a state's right set and allocating national resources. it was in many ways indicative

of her as a thinker and a jurist. it is something that was motivated by justice, motivated by trying to understand problems executed with great care, a very clear careful and close reading of the case law. trying to do a thorough and thoughtful job to advance law. i think this is typical of her then, and typical of her now. >> were you ever in a classroom situation with her? >> i don't think we were in a class together. i remember socializing, and also brainstormed for ideas together. >> let's talk about the brain storming. you went to different leadership roles. she went to what? >> she led a policy journal on

the executive leadership policy journal, and that was the part that i knew most about. i took the route, as did she come of using law school as an opportunity to develop ideas, and go into depth about an area that i thought was important, and for which there was insufficient understanding. >> paint a picture of the two of you in a social setting, and what the exchange of ideas might look like. >> i am picturing us -- i think in her apartment, although i cannot be sure. but also simultaneously laughing, but also in deep

conversation. i would say constructive conflict around ideas, that we were each trying to figure out both where we fit in, and what it meant to be a lawyer and be addressing this set of issues that we came into initially, that we were now being socialized into a row. what did that mean, and what was the relationship for those roles? what were we trying to accomplish? the thing that i remember being struck by at that time was the degree to which sonia had a deeper appreciation of the rule.

fit -- role. what it meant to be a lawyer and a prosecutor. what it meant to be writing from the position of a law journal editor as opposed to a reporter. to be an advocate vs eight judge. i remember having an initial set of conversations between roles and content. that one's content was shaped and having remember having a sense of sonia having this kind of passion for the law. whether you were a judge, whether you were an asset. that has been some of the criticism.

i think that is a misunderstanding of her. i think it has become much clearer now, watching her on the bench, it having conversations with her socially over the last year. she developed her opinions where she acquires based on what it means to be a judge. she is not an advocate. in law school, she was figuring out, where am i in this and what -- what is the role that will allow me to fulfill my

public ambition? having taken on the position of the judge, i would say she is as committed with that role as and when i have ever seen. she is a very careful jurist, she reasons three decisions, and she is not advancing an agenda as an advocate. that is what it means, i am in this position. what does one in the position of the judge did in a way that will give both credibility and legitimacy to the institution that you are a part of. that seems to be hard wired into how she operates. that is something sheet figured out even when she was in law school. >> now let's go to the social side. what do you do when you let their hair down? >> i don't think it would look

like letting your hair down all that much. what i remember it is wonderful dinners. sonia is someone who enjoyed good food, all different kinds of wonderful dinners. what i remember is, i am not the cook so it was sonia and others cooking wonderful food. just a real joy with the conversation around issues of passionist -- passionate interest, and finding the humor in that. she was always somebody who was always serious and committed, but was able to stand back with

humility and laugh at herself, and understand herself in relation to a broader thing. what really this dance out -- stands out as a judge is that she was someone who really paid attention to the content of what you were saying, who are you work, rather than who you were. she listened to a good argument for a persuasive view, whether it came from the person on the street, she is someone that pays very close attention to what it is you are saying, and at the same time not easily intimidated. she would push back if she

disagreed, and do it with grace and respect, but also making sure that she get to the bottom of things. that was something that was part of the enjoyment. we would do it socially, talking about the ideas. >> she is known for what is happening between the view, and your friends at dinner parties as well as in a classroom. >> she has great passion, with an interest that understands at a deep level and with an open mindedness around rethinking her own position, if she hears something that justifies her own process. >> were there things you did besides dinners?

>> what came to my mind is food and conversation. >> were there other latinos in the class? >> very few. she was not somebody who presented herself -- she was somebody who mingled with a wide range of people, seem to celebrate where she came from, but did not define herself by

where she came from. she was very well integrated into intellectual life of law school, a vibrant part of the law journal and a center of the intellectual life of the students. she is somebody who was also very active in some of the social issues that were relevant at the time. if i am remembering correctly, this does not stand up very visibly. she did some clinical work while she was at law school, and was involved in the community as well. she was active, although this is not something i had direct contact with, with organizations

at yale and with a leadership role in that as well. she wore many hats. it was a very active presence. >> do you remember your graduation? >> i remember a vaguely. >> were you all together? how did that work? >> we were all together. there was a cocktail party afterwards, and an opportunity to say our goodbyes and reminisce a little bit. >> how often do you talk to her? >> since i came to columbia and i joined the faculty in 1999 and joined the faculty in 2000, we continued our friendship.

we both seek out each other, we have had dinner on a number of occasions to share our lives. >> there is a story that one of the time she decided she wanted to be a judge, she was watching perry mason. did she ever tell you that? >> that is new information to me. >> with the articles written about her, where you think they got it wrong? >> when they talk about her as a great shooter, as someone who calls it like she sees it, who does not fall neatly in one or another place in the ideological

spectrum. someone who takes the role very seriously. those resonate with both the person i know and the judge -- and the justice i know she will be. the commentary suggesting that she is somebody who can cross a lot of lines, she can speak to people across the political spectrum, and is a very effective communicator. those also strike me as resonating with a person that i know. the ones that i found to be the most disconnected from the person or the ones where the commentary questioning her prosecution. to me, those reactions were really not about judge

sotomayor. there were about the --. there is a very little weight to look at your capabilities and her commitment and raise questions about her qualifications. >> from princeton, on the war -- law journal, experiences as a judge, and someone who takes the world seriously, and has been demanding of yourself. it is difficult to raise questions as to qualifications. this is an opportunity to say look, this is working out, the way in which a candidate for the supreme court nominee is being viewed.

>> is there anything in all of that as we have been reading the articles, or you say, they really missed it. there is something about her that i think people should know. >> the idea that putting together these qualities that the critics and reporters have noted separately on one hand, she is the one who is not really trying to stake out huge, new ground in her opinions. she is a careful jurist. this has been offered as a criticism. the idea that she is a tough communicator, and is not intimidated by anybody. when you put those two things together, you really get a

quality that i think will be serious and constructive for the court. what is really needed is the ability to push hard, listen hard and connect across, and do that in a way that has a deep commitment to the law. these qualities are being juxtaposed as an opposition to each other come in fact coexist with her, and put her in a position to be a remarkably effective justice. >> thank you. >> more now with our look at the life and career of supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. now more about her time working as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office.

>> the first time you met her, do you remember? >> yes i do. it was at yale law school. it was 1978. or 79. >> what were you doing there? >> recruiting. for the district attorney's office. i said, jose, do you have any good come -- candidates for me? he said i have one but i don't thing she ever thought of being an assistant district attorney. it would be good for her and good for you. her name is sonia sotomayor.

i said if she is interested, have her call me. >> did you interview her in this room? >> yes, i did. i interviewed everybody in this room. >> what struck you about her? >> she has an incredible academic record. she has come from a parochial high school. she tell me she had trouble with the language the first year, that hey professor had taken an interest in her. she wrote an essay everyday, and she ended up graduating summa cum laude. she was the editor of the law journal. i was impressed by her no

nonsense way. i am looking for people who can relate to the victims and witnesses. >> that relation to victims and witnesses. what does it take to have that ability? >> you have to have an understanding, you cannot be arrogant. even though she was very smart, she had the ability to communicate. we did a survey early on, the number one reason -- victims and witnesses refused to testify. we wanted to be sure the ability, and they could relate to victims and witnesses so they

would testify and testify truthfully -- turf truthfully. >> it was 1979. did you ever talk about -- was that a chance meeting? >> it was a chance meeting, although he and i were founding directors of the puerto rican legal defense fund. i said, jose, have you anybody for us? >> when you brought her into the office, what job did she have? th>> they started the day after labor day, went through a training program and then handled misdemeanors.

>she was in trial bureau 15. >> if you had to describe what a normal day would have been like at that period of time, how would you describe it? >> when they were on intake, they would speak with the arresting officers. they had to evaluate the testimony, and interview witnesses, if there were any. they handle the arraignment.

right then and there. wednesday were in a complete room, there would be rain. -- they would be arraigned. >> they would continue doing intake? >> that day yes. they had a lot of balls in the air and they had to be careful. she had the capacity to do a lot of work. judges to set on the arraignment -- and spoke with each other seat, eight cases they could dispose of, they will

push around the youngest, but nobody pushed sonia sotomayor around. >> why did she not allow herself to be pushed around? >> she is very even tempered. she was prepared when you are handling that many cases. she became well known as one of the newest assistance that you could not push around. >> at that time they didn't know if she was going to be interested in this. >> she had only applied at that

point to private firms. maybe i had to convince our, i don't know. she did not really say. >> how many assistants did you have that year in general? >> probably eight. >> i read somewhere that the salary was $23,000 a year. was that considered good? >> not really, no. the difference between coming to work for the district attorney's office and going into private practice. if you went into private practice, you were an employee. if you come to the district attorney's office, from the day you came in you were a partner.

you got a lot of responsibility. >> how often would you have one on one meetings? >> only if you had a case. we always had a lunch for them right after we started, a reception for them, but only if they were handling a case. >> where there in large cases she dealt with during that period that you would have been working on her -- working with her on? >> two major cases. the soap-called tarzan -- so- called tarzan robbery. it would kick in the windows and rob people. he committed three murders. she tried that case, along with

another associate. they put him away for 137 years to life. he is still in there. the other case was a child pornography case. we had had difficulty with child pornography cases. some of the old law, you have to show a film or whatever it was. there was an able trial lawyer from buffalo, he said --. we had a change in the statute to bring it under the child welfare law, the bases being that children in pornographic

films was a violation of the child welfare law. it was people vs. --, they upheld the constitutionality of it. she tried the first case. >> at that time, you had been the district attorney for five years? >> yes. >> you were getting your legs wet yourself? >> yes. she came in 1979. >> when you think about the possibility of her sitting on the supreme court, what do you see in the current boss current justices today to you also see in judge sotomayor? legal, person, whatever. >> #1, she is highly

intelligent. she believes in don't rule of law. she is a good listener -- she believes in of the rule of law. she has good judgment. when i first got out of law school i went to work for judge robert patterson at the second circuit. there was some familiarity with judicial thinking. i found her views outstanding. she will be outstanding. she will be the only judge on that court who has tried cases at the local level. she knows what the issues are, the problem the victim undergoes.

she also understands the impact of the federal decision. what people tend to forget is no more than 90% of the people are sent there by state prosecutors. to have one judge on the court who understands this is important. >> what of the criticisms of the judge has been whether personal thought come into the legal ideas. how would you deal with your assistance about their own personal opinions about certain things, and how to keep that out of their judicial life? >> that was never a problem with

her. she believed in the rule of law, we have guidelines, we have a practice mandel, -- we have a practice manual. we never had any case with her where she did not want to follow the guidelines. >> in order for her to be a knick assistant d.a. it was hard -- an assistant d.a. it was hard for her. >> it certainly is hard work. there are some assistance who want to try it on the sea -- by

the seat of their pants. she was always prepared. you have to get out and interview witnesses. this is not a job where you can live in your own world. we want to see somebody who can relate to the community. if you don't have the cooperation of the witnesses, you will get nowhere. >> does the ability for her to speak several languages help her? >> absolutely. a lot of victims and witnesses were hispanic.

when i came in, there were no latino assistance. -- look assistants. now we have 119. we have 19 women -- we had 19 women, now we have 268. this is a big change. the chief of the trial division has jurisdiction over all the heroes -- over all the bureaus. initially, i understood the importance of utilizing women. >> what advice would you give

judge sotomayor as she walks into the hearings? >> she will be your own best advocate. >> as she is testifying, you will be getting will ready to celebrate your 19th birthday. is that correct? >> i think it is. >> what are your plans? >> i have a lot of cases in the pipeline, and i want to try to get them all out. to be done between now and year and, and that is what i am concentrating on. >> how would you compare the crime of the city of new york in 1979, and the job of the assistant d.a. at that time? >> there is much more white-

collar crime now than before at the corporate level or corruption or identity theft. when i became his attorney, there were 648 murders in manhattan. last year there were 62. there are newer kinds of crime. 90% of our cases are identity theft. the whole area of immigration, i think the way the federal government handles immigration cases is a national disgrace. we set up a special unit to deal with this. immigrants and -- have been victims of crime and have been afraid to testify.

we will not refer any case involving an illegal immigrant to federal authorities. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> judge sotomayor said confirmation -- confirmation hearing is set for july 13th. you can learn much more about the judge on our website. join us again next week for america and the courts on c- span. for more information on the nomination of judge sotomayor go to our web site, c-span.org. you'll see reaction from congress and the senate floor statements from a 1998 appeals court nomination. the senate judiciary committee is scheduled to hold a

confirmation hearing the week of july 13th, and will have that hearing on c-span network and online at c-span.org. these places remind me of modern cathedrals that the owners would build wings on, hoping they would go to heaven. >>walter kirn would like to see a few changes to the higher education system. >> i think that these wonderfully concentrated islands of power and wealth, and every edition should be opened up to larger society, and not kept separate. >> walter kirn, lost in a meritocracy, tonight on c-span. you can also listen on

xmsatellite radio or download a c-span podcast. . . "washington journal" continues. host: the ambassador from iraq is here to talk about the future of iraq. of iraq. let me bring your attention is article this morning from "the washington post," with this headline. this prompts senior officials to us whether gradual withdrawal has provided an opening to

extremist groups eager to spark sectarian attacks between sunnis and shiites. your thoughts? guest: these were reasonable and legitimate but let's not take them too far. the last time i appeared on the show iraq was in the grip of a high level of violence. al qaeda was in control of large areas of the country. we were struggling to maintain law and order. the situation now is way, way more stable, more secure. the average iraqi citizen feels much safer. we did not say that al qaeda has been totally obliterated. that violence has come down to zero, or the threats have gone away. the threats had been reduced.

instead of 300 attacks per day we are down to something like 10 attacks per day on average. by the efforts and sacrifices of american forces as well as iraqi security forces. host: moving toward what are your thoughts about what is needed for long-term security? guest: there is a lot. we still have to consolidate and advance the capability of our security forces. our security forces still need logistical and some technical support from our american friends. we need to do more work. we also need to work on resolving our internal political differences. when we started off there was no system. now there is a system,

institutions, and people instead of trying to resolve their differences in the street with guns and bombs are now engaged, fully engaged in parliament and political process. that has embraced everyone apart from the most extremists. host: vice-president joe biden was in baghdad over the weekend. as the troops are moving out of the major cities, having him there, what kind of signal does that send to the iraqi leader's about moving forward with the obama administration's policy toward it? guest: it signals that we're getting attention and it is not totally shifted from iraq to other crises.

vice president biden is highly respected and well-informed. he knows the situation by ground. going there to baghdad i believe it gives us the feeling that we are not forgotten. host: we are talking about the future of iraq with the iraq ambassador to the united states. if you would like to beat in the conversation here are the numbers. to send us an e-mail, c- span.org. you can also use twitter. the first call comes from the line for democrats. caller: hello.

thank you c-span. i want to ask the ambassador, once the american military forces leave iraq and the only americans remaining are civilians helping the country build itself, do you think sending -- do you think there might be a possibility that there will be unrest and perhaps even a civil war in iraq deaths guest: let's hope not. last year the iraqi government signed two agreements with the american one was the state of forces agreement, the other was the strategic agreement. the first was on surity, the second was to build up long-term strategic relationship as an

ally of the united states. test security improves and as the american forces moved out we shift emphasis. we are really into a new phase now. going forward, hopefully, we will need less involvement by the troops and eventually they will leave. the question of leaving was never in question. it is only a matter of when. iraq will be independent. it will take care of itself. it is a matter of reaching that stability and capacity. host: earlier you mentioned a technical support also. what do you mean specifically? guest: yu ou see, we have

control over air, the use of guns, some communications facilities that are highly important for intelligence gathering. we have some air transport. a lot of these things are still not up to capacity within the iraqi security system. so we are relying on american friends to provide them for us. host: the next call comes from troy, mich. on the line for republicans. caller: thank you, good morning, ambassador. i wanted to just ask about a couple of issues that might peripherally affect him. and how much you affecting one affect the feeling of the general iraqi citizens. the election of barack obama

himself, especially his middle name, and his background in understanding the belize. is there any advancement due to his different approach into the palestinian-iraq is really in -- palestinian-israelian conflict. " fractional benefit might there be from the new administration concerning these two issues? guest: thank you, tom. iraq and iraqis will always be grateful for president bush for removing saddam hussein who was a very vicious and ruthless tyrant, however, president obama is an immensely popular figure in iraq and in the millies. i think his sympathetic approach

will gain -- and in the middle east. i think his sympathetic approach will gain for the united states many more friends and will reduce the ability of enemies to heard it. also, -- to hurt it. the new approach in impetus he has given to solving middle east problems, between israel and palestine, will be very helpful to create an atmosphere that is constructive. an atmosphere that would be easy for those to be allied and close to the united states host: next, north carolina. caller: good morning. again not know why saddam hussein has anything to do with [inaudible] but why has it taken the iraqi

people so long to stand up for themselves? the united states had given lots. why has it taken so long for the iraqi government, army, police to stand up? guest: let me remind you of a couple of facts. first, it was the 90 states -- united states decision to totally disbanded the iraqi police and army, so they left the country totally without these institutions. can you imagine any country without police or army and to rebuild that from scratch? the right position would have been to keep these institutions in place and reform them. that was one factor which comes back to the responsibility of the u.s. the other fact is that there were many other countries such as germany after the war in japan which took much longer

than the iraqis have. we have had made tremendous progress in a relatively short time. in a span of six years if you measure -- in the last two years if you measure the progress, you will find it is astounding. host: back to the funds. huntington, new york on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. yes, good morning. ok --when we start to pull out of iraq would iraqis be ready to --would they be ready to govern themselves? guest: they are already

governing themselves. let me give you this news in new there is a constitution in place. there is a parliament. there is an elected government. there were provincial elections last january. there will be in national elections next january. the institutions of the state are working. i am here as an ambassador of a state that is a founding member of the united nations. that is the founding member of the arab league. an important player in the regional balance of the security and politics in the middle east. iraq is not a country that has just sprung up from nowhere. iraq is a very ancient country that has routes and now has a of government. iraqis have always prided

themselves on being independent and capable of governing themselves and are doing that just now. host: he was just elected permanent member of the united nations in 2004. in april to dozen 6 he moved to washington, d.c. s iraq's first ambassador to the united states for 16 years. host: back to the phones, to texas. caller: it is less than one hour from waco. it is an indian-named town. i have a question for the investor. i remember reading about something called the agreement of 1916. read that it basically gave england and france complete control of trade throughout the middle east. do you think this is a fair

assessment? also, do you believe that the jesuit order was involved with the assassination of john kennedy? @@@@@@j@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ h and at the end of the first world war, the french and british entered into this agreements, named after their respective prime ministers, to carve up the territories which were ruled by the ottoman empire. iraq, jordan, and palestine at the time fell to the british, what is now syria and lebanon fell to the french.

the were governed in the subsequent years. the influence of britain and france, even their cultural influence, including language still prevail in those areas. host: yesterday, but president biden said his mission was to reestablish contact with the white house and baghdad. but reports have said that the iraqi government officials, some have publicly rejected the vice president's offer to help with national reconciliation, saying it is an internal affair. guest: that is the problem with democracy. it is missing of people say all kinds of things. what is important is what the prime minister says. we have members of parliament the same as you have congressman and senators who voice opinions which are very varied.

we as a government are very serious about the relationship between the countries of iraq and the west going for. we need the u.s.. the u.s. needs an ally in the region. we want to be that allied and the weak share common values and interests. we are a democracy and i believe that is the important thing we must focus on. host: massachusetts on the line for democrats. you are on the line. caller: good morning. ambassador, why was it necessary for amican troops to invade iraq if it was a question of getting rid of saddam hussein? why couldn't the u.s. simply give arms and moral support to the resistance and probably no americans would have gotten

killed and probably fewer iraqis would have gotten killed. the iraqi people would have been more in control of is your destiny. guest: thank you very much. it is a question for historians and for the administration which made the decision to go into iraq. let me be clear. from the iraqi perspective we were very glad that america decided to intervene. i was one of the leading members of the iraqi opposition and the years of exile while saddam hussein was in charge. it was extremely difficult. we live loved to have extra no hope. myself and other iraqis came to the city and lobbied for attention, for assistance in removing saddam hussein. there were many different ways. you must remember that saddam hussein was so ruthless that he virtually removed, liquidated

anybody inside iraq who was vaguely suspected of being in opposition to his rule. i would remind you also of the large number of people he murder. it was not an easy task to move against saddam is in. in 1991 there was an of rising after iraq was driven from kuwait. as a result of that hundreds of thousands of iraqis were murdered. at that time in a to the states did not assist us, the people who rose up, although president bush 41 called for people to rise up and they did. they were left in the lurch. it is unfortunate. it is not a very positive episode of our history, but it happened. host: richening, your next.

caller: good morning, sir. -- virginia, you are next. caller: i was an iraqi veteran myself. i was part of the group who built the wall in sadr city and watched one slum become a thriving market. it is a wonderful place to drive through in which people play soccer in the streets. i did not join the army for go to iraq to find weapons of mass destruction, but i went to give 25 million people the rights of self-determination. i hope people in baghdad get a better luck. i learned a lot about your culture and country through interpreters in people. i want to say that i wish you and it your country the best in the future and hope we get a

strong alliance going. host: are you still there? the me ask, how much direct contact did you have was civilians there in iraq and what would you say stood out of the things you learned you did not know before you went there? caller: first of all, they love soccer. that is the biggest thing. everything was soccer, soccer, sucker. the street market. -- soccer. it is so much like america. people trying to get by, trying to make a living. people just trying to live their own lives. lots of times they just did not have that chance. i learned a lot. the interpreters are great people. host: how long did it take you to feel comfortable walking

among the civilian population? caller: not lg at all. you get the battle focus going in when she learned the neighborhood to learn the people, know the signs, know what meat is safe or not, and can take action based on that. guest: tyler, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my gratitude to you and to all other good americans who have helped us all along in the last few difficult years. we have had tremendous, tremendous help from people in the military and in the civilian service who came along and it really put themselves at risk to help our nation, our people. there were some bad people as well. we regret that and i'm sure they

do not represent what america stands for. but without your help and the help of the american armed services in civilian support they had iraq would not have made the progress it has had. so, thank you very much. host: next up, indiana, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, everyone go to wikipedia and type in david satterfiled who worked at the department of state who wrote up a 15-page document called the security agreement. it was privatized in the constitution of iraq to be bid on by the global oil barons. there will get $3 per barrel and everyone will bid on it. this is an act of treason.

under our u.s. constitution only congress can set up agreements with other nations. representatives ackerman had him before his subcommittee and i listened with appall. the pipeline from iraq goes to a port in the natural gas will be liquefied and taken by the tankers to the world. the people of iraq views to get 60% of their income from that resource while it was nationalized will now be on food stamps. it is for the oil and natural gas. it is the linchpin of the middle east. it is for the wealthy of the world to control this resource which is all that iraq has. and it is not in the press. it is not on our media. but it is on wikipedia.

they've satterfield, department of state. host: mr. ambassador? guest: i am sorry, but i believe that you have your facts all mixed up. iraq has made it clear in its own constitution that the oil and gas and minerals in the ground belong to all the iraqi people and only to the iraqi people. iraq has been struggling to find a way to rebuild its oil industry, to get international companies to come and help, but at the same time not to give out too much of control to international companies because we have, again, an old and proud oil industry which belongs to the nation. recently, only last week, there were bids and i think one particular bid won, which i

think was a consortium between british petroleum and the china national petroleum company. they took the control of the development of one of the major oil fields in iraq. revenue from oil, the entire revenue from oil goes to the ministry of finance, to the iraqi people. in fact, right now, because our economy has not been moving very well because of the violence, 90% of the revenue of the government is from one. the government -- the whole economy depends on oil, but there's no question that iraqis would relinquish control of oil to anyone weather in the west or in the east. host: the last call comes from

vermont caller: good morning to you both. rob, by the way, if you google amnesty international you will satisfy curiosity about is really war crimes. ambassador, a pleasure. i wonder if you could discuss the difference between the u.s. installing the shah in iran and the u.s. and selling saddam hussein in iraq. thank you. guest: i am in the last minute of my interview and you asked me to give you a lecture in history which would require three hours. it will be difficult. look, to say that the united states installed the shah and as a down his dane is a bit of an exaggeration. certainly, the u.s. did play a role in the coming of power in

1960. that is undisputed. but then there were internal dynamics that allowed saddam hussein in particular to seize power and then to seize total power. i'm not going to comment on those shah. it is a different history. yes, the u.s. did. have a did but so did other powers. that is not going to help to dig up who did what 40, 50 years ago. we are now dealing with daily issues, with the lives of 30 million people, with long- suffering and how to alleviate that, to reduce the threat for iraqis and also to the u.s. in this we have a common purpose

and on this we will work for years to come. we want to be close to the u.s. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" the congressional week ahead. the discussion on u.s.-russia relations and president obama's trip to russia. congressman henry waxman talks about his book about how congress really works. that's live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i don't know. i think some of it is government raised. >> is not public funding. >> donations. >> i want to say from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded?

30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiatives, no government mandate, no government money. >> domestic policy advisers from richard nixon to george w. bush talked about lessons learned on their jobs. this is about 90 minutes. i am a professor of political science at rhodes college and a senior fellow here at the miller center. this is one of, or -- one of four sessions on the team of white house domestic policy making. if you are watching this on c- span, you may want to go to relevant web sites and find how

to watch the other sessions, all of which have been excellent. this session is focused on the lessons of those who have worked in the white house on domestic policy and a number of recent administrations have learned from that experience. lessons from successes, lessons from failures. we have an all-star cast of four white house officials to help us explore this. we begin with stuart eisenstaedt from the carter administration. also from the clinton and ministration. he currently heads the international practice at covington and was, during the carter years, the chief white house domestic policy adviser. during the clinton years, he was among other things, u.s. ambassador to the european union. more recently, working on holocaust issues and the author of a much praised book on the subject, will be in perfect

justice." -- "imperfect justice." william galston, from the clinton administration, holds a chair at the brookings institution government study program and is a professor at the university of maryland. he served as deputy assistant to the patent for domestic policy during the clinton years and worked not only in al gore's presidential campaign. he is the author of eight books, most recently, "the practice of liberal pluralism and public matters." from the nixon administration, when arguably the domestic staff began, [unintelligible] here recently joined these that -- the center for the presidency in congress as a senior fellow

in leadership, ethics, and integrity. famously he is associated with his work on john ehrlichman's staff in the nixon white house as assistant to the council of the president at the beginning of nixon's first term and later moved explicitly with john ehrlichman into the newly formed domestic council staff. also involved with the white house plumbers, and on the basis of that unhappy experience, spent 35 years thinking and teaching issues of ethics and integrity, which is part of what he is doing with the center for the study of the president's seat in congress. roger porter has been a part of three administrations focusing on domestic policy. currently, he is a professor of business and government at the kennedy school at harvard. those three presidencies, the ford administration, where he served as executive secretary on the president's economic policy

board, the reagan administration, where he served as director of the white house office of policy development, and the first bush administration, where he served as assistant to the president on economic and domestic policy. to lead the discussion are to scholars and to great colleagues of every political scientist studies the presidency. the chair at the city of politics at the university of columbia which would come away from the university of illinois. he has done many things and has earned a recognition of the enduring contribution award on the public policy section of the american political science association. we also have a professor of

political science at the whole college, the author of the new republic and coalition, the reagan campaign, and white evangelicals. they are currently working on a book about the presidency and congress as policymaking institutions. very good people and without further ado, -- let me mention jim pinkerton. [laughter] i'm still mad at him because i was assured i would be the tallest person here. he out ranks me by several heads. i will introduce in any way. it is a pleasure to do so. currently, some of the people know jim pinkerton from the work he is doing as a contributor at fox news channel. he is here because he served as deputy assistant to the president for policy planning in the first bush presidency.

more recently as a senior adviser to the might cut the campaign. -- to the mike huckabee campaign. he is a fellow at the new american council and is very tall. i will get over that someday. thank you to you all for being here. >> thank you very much. the sessions we have been having here have talked about various aspects of domestic policy making operations and we have talked about campaigns, the relationship between campaigns and of learning, especially the transition. specifically about policy formulation process these end the process of getting out the message. this is a session to step back and think about what overall is critical. what we would like you to do is reflect on what were the

significance successes and failures in domestic policy of the presidency's you are associated with and what did staff have to do with it. that is, was a because of something about the organization were the operation of the staff or the president of interaction with the staff or particular personnel and their performance or lack of, what did staff have to do with the successes or failures? we hope to hear some examples and get you to spell out a little bit and so we will give each of you a few minutes to develop your points and come to your conclusions, especially conclusions about what lessons you would draw. we will go in chronological order. there is some confusion because roger porter served in more than one presidency, but --

>> i will start with a topic i did not have much to do with and that is probably why it was such a great success. the environment was hardly an issue in the 1968 campaign. i don't think either candidate talked about more than once or twice. we came into office in january of 1969 and this issue began to become important. i'm not sure the president's was terribly interested in it, but he gave much responsibility to staff to develop some initiatives. during the first year, john ehrlichman transition from being council to present to an assistant to the press and for domestic affairs. i went with him in that transition. john whitaker, on the white house staff, became the point person on environmental policy. the first year, in 1969, with it

with a was the one on in congress with the environment, they passed a national environmental policy act, so there was some congressional support for this. we were not immune to what was going on in congress. senators like scoop jackson and others were champing this idea of environmental legislation. it was a learning year for what was at stake. at the end of 1969 and 1970, 1971, one of the most major explosions in domestic policy legislation occurred. it was adopted in 1970 and it said at the environmental protection agency. a gallon and the departments of justice was asked to head the agency. the department of interior ran

a council on environmental quality and john whitaker had the assignment on the white house staff of natural resources and the environment. john ehrlichman was very successful in being able to persuade the president this was an important subject. if you ask about the role of staff in this, the environmental program moved forward because there were exceptionally talented people on staff in the council for an arm of the quality and the epa were committed and effective. what was the result of their working together? the reorganization plans of the environment protection agency and submitted seven. all seven were adopted or rather not voted down. they had 60 days to vote down and initiatives. clean water, clean air, and injured species, -- endangered species, that came at the end of 1973.

the major legislative pillars of the environmental movement were established at that time. there were public figures like dennis hayes who started earth day in 1970. i wondered if it was my job of white house staff to assemble on the banks of the potomac river to start pulling out logs and junk from the river. we had to be part of this major national movement. there was a lot of support within white house staff to what we were doing. that four-year period from 1969-1973 was a healthy and. in legislative work and executive orders adopted and i attribute a lot of that to the four gentlemen i mentioned. we had tremendous support on the hill. the environment had been primarily a democratic issue.

i think we borrowed it for that four-year time. there may be another term that is stronger [laughter] but i want to go there because we did get into trouble in other areas also. but that was a success. i'm not sure the president was never terribly comfortable with what we were doing on environmental policy. but he signed all the bill. when you read some of the history after -- we read the history afterward, he says maybe we overdid it on the environmental side. when you look at global warning -- global warming been the critical issue, you can look back and say where disinterest part? that is a success. we did not have any failures. [laughter] we did a lot of reorganizations

that were adopted. i think our major failure was trying to reorganize everything. we had a proposal sent to the hilt in 1971 where we were going to consolidate seven agencies into four. there were community development, at natural resources, human resources, and economic affairs. that act itself would have probably alienated every special-interest group, every congressional committee and staff and the bureaucracy. but there were no allies for this except a few people thought we ought to organize around function rather than one of these simple functional aspects like transportation or energy. that failed. it was a stillbirth. the idea is still good, but it was a failure because there was no effort to lay the foundation for what we need to do.

i think it is still a good idea but unlikely to occur in our lifetime. >> will you connect that to staff in some way? >> yes. staff was being motivated in part by some very good ideas that came out of the council on organization. we thought that organizing around functions and that being able to put people in charge that could result lot of the trade-off was a good idea. but then to put it all in one package and send the entire thing up to congress and say pass it was an overwhelmingly difficult, maybe impossible task because of lack of integration of congressional people into the process. >> i don't think there was close interaction between congress and the presidential staff. i sometimes look back and wonder

how serious it was. when they really wanted to pass something, there was very close interaction. in the drug area, the close interaction between congress and the white house staff, the office of management and budget to develop legislation. we were able to get things through without a dissenting vote. >> let me start on the successes, which i believe merit saying that president carter had as many legislative successes as any first term president and will equal those of most two- term presidents. three major energy bills were passed which they the groundwork for our energy policy today. breaking the not on pricing for oil and natural gas and encouraging their domestic production. major conservation initiatives and major initiatives from solar to synfuels for alternative energy. the first major cafe standards,

fuel efficiency standards set in 1977. today, at a time where twice as dependent on foreign oil as we were then. the fuel -- average fuel efficiency standards for automobiles is less than it was in 1985. he was a major conservation president. i think the greatest since theodore roosevelt, setting aside more public land in the and ash -- and the alaska public lands bill. many of the things president nixon did. he deregulated all forms of transportation, airlines, trucking, bus and rail and brought airline travel to the great middle-class who could not afford it before. he created to attempt -- two major departments. he brought those issues up to the cabinet level and up to the higher level of public attention. he got the tokyo trade round

pass with only two dissenting votes. he passed the panel to now treaty in the senate and house and started the camp david accords. having said that, it reminds me of my father's story about a boxer who comes back bloody after the third round, sits on the stool and the manager says you are doing great. the guy has not laid a glove on you. the boxer says you better watch the referee because somebody is beating the hell out of me. [laughter] the question is, why did we get the hell beat out of us in 1980. i would suggest there are two major reasons. the first, hopefully the professor would get into in detail. external events which impacted presidency -- the great inflation of 1970's which bedeviled president nixon and president ford and president carter. the iranian revolution, which not only give us the hostage

crisis that led to a spike in gas prices and gas lines. but there were self-inflicted wounds also and this gets back to your question about staff and organization. the president, under the constitution, has limited authorities except being commander in chief. his primary capacity is to initiate legislation and then be the salesman in chief for it. in order to do that, you have to have a very clear message, set your priorities, and have a communications strategy integrated into that. that content with having a highly organized by house staff. we made the mistake of not having a chief of staff for the first year of arbitration, adopting a spokes of a wheel concept in which the senior aides each had equal last. -- equal access.

that would focus the president's attention and develop a strategy around them. closely aligned to that was not having an experienced white house staff. i was the veteran, having served one year in the johnson white house and on the humphrey campaign. but all the senior people were largely inexperienced. with an inexperienced president who had spent four years as governor, others learned a lesson from that by bringing in people like jim baker for ronald reagan. people like leon panetta or john podesta for president clinton. rahm emanuel for obama. not knowing washington is a terrific problem because it's a complicated place with many power centers and you have to have not only chief of staff,

but a staff that has experience with washington. another self-inflicted wound was primaries. we learned after the first year how to set them endorse it effectively through the vice president's office, focusing on only two or three a year. that first year, we try to do everything. a major energy bill, a major cost containment bill, airline deregulation, welfare reform, a stimulus package, and therefore we confused the message. there was not a clear, focused message around which the public could organize and the president could mobilize public opinion and get congress to pass. although a lot got done, it paled in comparison to the number of things done since they were done in a comprehensive way which teaches me a lesson that congress is an increment to

institution. it can take things in bits and pieces. if you load to meet big, comprehensive issues before, what will come back will pale in comparison. the last self-inflicted wound i would put under no surprises -- congress eight -- congress hates surprises. you have to prepare them. it hit congress in their home districts. there was no warning for it and the first energy bill, which was prophetic, courageous, and laid a sound future, had not been a major issue in the campaign. the president put jim/injure a great 90 day deadline to do it with no concertation and no interagency review. the secretary of treasury and

the president's economic adviser came in with a man of just before the 90-day deadline, saying we have not seen this. we need to know the cost implications are. those are the successes and failures. we learn from our failures and that's why we had successes. but we had that first year of being a difficult year which set the pattern of people thinking about the administration. >> there is one puzzle about this. it strikes me that the core of what you say comes back to the point of inexperience. people did not have the background to know how to operate in washington. some of these other things look like consequences of that. the lack of a chief of staff. and me get to this interesting thing here -- did anybody make a

point to president-elect carter before office that you are putting together a lot of people who have not been there? what was the ultimate source of this? was it because of the president's lack of understanding? >> every president wants to bring with him the people who made his election possible. you had the california gang that came with reagan. yet the georgia gang became with us. nixon had his group. every president wants people he contrasts. there is always a risk of bringing some the outside. but president reagan a fundamental decision, learning from our lesson. he took the campaign manager of his principal opponent in the campaign to be his chief of staff. that sort of mellowed the people around him and bring the experience, mainly jim baker. that was something we were not advised to do. president-elect are at the peak

of their power. that's not a time when people like to say you are not doing the right thing. at the end of the first year, we did bring people in who were experts, but that was not done at the beginning. we paid a frightful price for it. >> thank you. we've had three presidents -- but why don't you may be focused on president reagan if you can. >> let me mention a word about president ford first. i think a meeting him in this context would be unfortunate. during the three months before gerald ford took office, the

wholesale price index which we now call the producer price index was increasing at an annual rate of 37%. it was the most explosive outburst of inflation in u.s. history. at the same time that inflation was increasing at a high double- digit levels, the unemployment rate was increasing. something economists said was not possible because of this wonderful thing we called the phillips curve which postulates the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. now we have the worst of both worlds -- rising inflation and rising unemployment. four days after taking office, gerald ford decided to convene a summit conference on inflation. this was at the urging of congressional leaders to decide what to do. in one of those meetings, he convened a group of 30 leading economists. 15 democrats and 15 were

republicans. it included names that would be familiar to all of you and i assume our listeners as well. after meeting for three hours, he asked the president of president johnson's chairman of economic advisers to summarize. he said that the one thing on which we all agree -- inflation is bad and must be brought under control, but the one thing on which we can all agree is that we have an excessive amount of regulation. we need to begin to deregulate was typically known as economic regulation -- transportation, energy, telecommunications, financial services, etc. that began very early in president ford's term and fall by president carter and fall by

president reagan and fall by president bush and followed by president clinton and followed by the second president bush a series of measures that have done an enormous sum of good with respect to the overall performance of the economy. president ford made a very difficult decision, and his first state of the union address. he would propose no new spending programs until he had brought inflation under control. he worked relentlessly, and a great and then forgotten fact of the 1976 election, he brought inflation down to 4.8% in 1976 which is one of the underappreciated can't -- under pre shared accomplishments of a president willing to take a decision after decision to do this.

he did this because he had a staff organized through what was called the economic policy board that took all issues to him and were for a lot less in basically saying the prism through which we need to view this is how can we effectively bring inflation under control? when president reagan came in, he had an enormously challenging tax -- challenging task as to what he should do with respect to the economy because it had gotten back on the inflationary engine. we had two years back-to-back of double-digit inflation. a 27.5% prime interest rate and virtually no growth in the previous years. he proposed plan that was put together and implemented by his staff, but that he was involved in which would restrain the rate of growth of federal spending,

the rate of growth of taxation and regulation. that was something he was relentless in introducing the notion that market-oriented arrangements would be the preferable way in which to add the it -- in which to deal with things. for the most part, that was followed for the next 25 years. when we are assessing the success and failure of a president's term, we need to look at not whether it is enacted, but see the longer sweep of history. this sounds like a great success story. but there was a problem. president reagan knew when he came and that we were facing a difficulty with respect to entitlement spending. we had an increase in entitlements spending in real terms for the previous 15 years of 9% a year compounded for 15

years. one of the problems with social security. he tackled that right at the beginning of his first term. he made a proposal that was not adequately leaked to the press -- it was leaked to the press to days before was announced and the republican controlled sentence -- republican- controlled senate voted 98-0 disparaging the president's plan. it was effectively killed. tip o'neill become a round head and shoulders for the next 18 months, trying to convince americans that civilization was going to end. he lost 26 seats in the midterm elections. .

>> to have told a story of enormous successes and similar growths. is there a staff story underline this? >> ultimately, presidents make the decisions. i do not think is fair for presidents to blame or give credit to the staff. the staff exists to make sure that the president understands what his real choices are and

what are likely to be the patterns of costs and benefits associated with various courses of actions. they're there to make sure the numbers that are being presented to him are accurate, not inflated, or based on hope rather than reality and to help him understand what, in fact, his real choices are. for the most part, i think, with ford and reagan and the first bush term, a staff that a reasonably good job of making sure they understood what their choices were. >> his been very kind and gracious year. he mentioned in 1972 as when they did index social security and the cost-of-living adjustments. that was under richard nixon. it seemed like a good idea at the time. let me just put it that way.

i think one important point to bear in mind about the bush 41 administration was that he was the first president to represent the third consecutive term for his party since truman. if you just think about the cycle of congressional strength that a president has, it goes straight down from the moment he is sworn into when he leaves the office. by the time we came in in 1989, republicans were a severe minority, no prospects, and the country had rejected dukakis. they're not in love with the republican regime. we should not forget things like iran in 1987-1988. when president bush came in and,

therefore, much of his agenda was pretty much set by the combination of the democrats in congress and the media. when your job is to negotiate things like cleaner air, assault weapons ban, i cannot think of anyone i would rather have doing my negotiating than porter had a cynical understanding of those issues and the degree of patience, a virtue of suffering fools gladly, not to say anything about the congress. or the cabinet. >> or the staff. >> anyway, that was an incredibly difficult tasks that he performed brilliantly. the cap and a trade legislation which emerged from the clean air act was a major new idea. it is very hard to both

annunciate a new idea and then make an impact. to actually get it done in the same breath, roger, bill reilly -- bill o'reilly. anyway, that was -- it did not do bush 41 much good politically because the democrats, frankly, that most of the credit and the republican base hated most of those things. sometimes, you are just dealt that some cards from where you come into the cycle. i do want to see -- i do want to associate myself with what stu said about extraneous events and what roger said about grants. it is important, not that bush's unique, but big things are happening in the world, the fall

of the berlin wall, tian an men square. a third incident that i think had a huge impact on me was the central park case in late 1989. that is what hit me that we have this consensus about big government, welfare of the state, that sort of thing. a boy, is lousy. -- and boy, is a lousy in its functioning. i have a horrible crime rate in the new york city and we have this situation and the emergence of a lower class. there is a severe indictment of something that we were doing. out of that -- in addition, there was technology, the computer in a big way came along. i think here is where bush 41 was struggling.

they're struggling with the kind of things where would this mean when you're old systems of government, all bureaucracies are collapsing? nonetheless, when they sensed where there was no motion, public housing authorities are corrupt, schools are not any good, we are a nation at risk, and that is what we were trying to struggle with in the bush 41 arab with roger's indulgence. -- bush 41 with roger's indulgence. we are seeing this in business and governments that we were lucky enough to have the author of the inventing government, david osborn, come and visit us. i guess this is a case where a lot of intellectual capital that was generated for people like her nanotubesdesoto -- hernando

desoto did not do bush 41 any good because he was not interested. there were trying to bring in in applying these lessons of a or design -- organizing and restructuring. it had a great benefit for the clinton administration agree >> is it possible for a president to structure advising in such a way that he can get wind of earthshaking trends like that or is it pretty much always of focused on a narrow management? >> i sort of associate myself with what henry kissinger said. you bring in all the intellectual capital that you have. you're too busy during the course of things to make that kind of pettitte, but i am sure others would have examples, too, of presidents who were more

alert to trends in the culture and the larger climate. >> let us move on to build. -- of to bill. >> like a good student, paul, i'm going to begin by answering the question about modern media relations. i always put it on to the question you want answered as opposed to the one you have been given. again, like semi- semi-rebel that i am, i'm going to segue into the same question. this reminds me of one of my favorite stories that involves one of my favorite people who had taken a freshman member of congress in tow. there was seated next to each

other when this a very, very long debate was going on and on and on. finally, the freshmen could not take any longer and he tapped him on the shoulder and said, " why are they still talking? everything has been said." he smiled and said, "yes son who, but not everyone has said it." that is my role, to repeat with emphasis. let me just give you a few things on the staffing issue that i think i have learned, not only from my experience in the white house but from observation and study of other people's experiences of the white house. i hope that future presidents will all put this in the bag. number one under modern circumstances, a strong to get -- a strong chief of staff is a necessity. we have it tested all of the alternatives, but the president has to be smart enough to manage the down sides because the

downside of not having one is that though. number two, you do need keepers of the flame. loyalists who are prepared to remind the president and the people around the president that there was a campaign, the president stood for something during that campaign, and he needs to keep that in mind during governance. third, experience matters and very frequently loyalists are inexperienced and the experience are not too loyal pretty president has to be built to manage that. i think, frankly, it was self- defeating for the clinton white house on the one to take the decision that no one had served in a previous administration by someone who could have done is a great deal of good credit there are reasons rooted in and in experience and who were s when he was not.

-- in an experience and hubris. the fourth thing that i have learned is that you cannot outsource the president's agenda. you cannot outsourced to departments, agencies, were the congress. -- or the congress. cabinet government will not work for the president under modern circumstances. congressional government will not work either. we shall see. finally, and this is something that i learned from personal experience, draw on the permanent staff is available to you particularly in the office of management and budget. when i got to the white house, i did not understand with the office of management and budget was and what an enormous repository it was and how much your own thoughts could be leveraged by the wisdom and

experience of people who had been working in different policy areas for so long. if i could pass on one piece of advice to young people coming into the white house as part of the president's team, find out who your counterparts are in departments and agencies but also the office of management and budget treated do not take giving as gospel, but listen very carefully. -- do not take everything as gospel, but listen very carefully. these are some rules of thumb i have taken away. first of all, began a strong. as the old saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. i think every president, every new ministration, has it to think very hard about how to lead from strength.

if you stumble into something like the "don't ask don't tell" controversy, what comes first helps to frame public understanding. you've talked eloquently about the successes of years two through four of the reagan administration. you're one friend that in the public understanding. i think that is the priority of a larger truth -- i think that is part of a larger truth. secondly, consistency within your campaign is important. if you say you're going to focus like a laser beam on the economy, do not stumble into " don't ask don't tell." if you say you're going to be a new kind of democrat, when members of congress to you to do something, maybe you should push back. third, you really have to focus and select free campaigning is

about addition and governing is about selection. 1933-1934 is the 100 days and lbj is -- a --'s our historical anomaly is in generally speaking, you cannot do that much and flood the zone and hope to control very many passes. when you need to choose among elements of your agenda, make a clean choices as bill clinton did early in 1993 when he had to figure out whether to give the emphasis to public investment or fiscal prudence during the campaign. circumstances changed and he had to adjust by making a choice.

large sustainable changes are rarely made on small majorities. when the great victories of the clinton administration is because when it happened. it was a bipartisan effort. take what you can get and declare victory. if you hold up your veto pen and say you have to have 100% of what you want or you will take nothing, you're likely to get nothing and you are likely to pay a huge political price for getting nothing. finally, we have been asked to talk about success. well, success is in ambiguous concept -- is an ambiguous concept. what succeeds politically does not seri -- does not necessarily succeed in a policy. would you do when there's a

tension between the two things? -- what's the you do when there's a tension between the two things? achieving support at the cost of doing what needs to be done is a hollow victory. i think every -- staff people around the president have to be in worried about feeding a president's desire for sustained. we're all going to pay a price, but if we do not do this we will never get another chance in the country will be worse for it. >> are there are failures in early stages of the clinton ministration that an experienced hand could have helped to revenge attacks -- that the clinton administration an experienced hand could help to prevent?

>> one of the defining decisions of the early clinton ministration, we were getting lots of different advice about welfare and health care. is a matter of record that bill clinton moving to the highest level of emphasis during the campaign the idea that welfare as we know it, the key swing states in the 10 days before the november election, the only ads were up were about welfare reform. that represented a pretty solemn undertaking, i believe, of the american people. i suspect very strongly that if there had been able -- a stu as chief of staff for policy, i think he would give slow down on

the scale. i think you've told the president and people around them that this was one of the things were elected to do, not eventually, but immediately. yes, congress is going to tell you not to do it, but i think you have to insist. that might have made for some very tense conversations not only with the president but those close to half -- close to him. i think that -- and that is one of those areas where a combination with experience in the distance may have served the clinton white house very well. >> i would like to bring some more people into the conversation. to put another ball out there into the air, i would like to talk about how politics of an issue and advice from a political demise, mixes with

more sensitive advice? also, i think to kind of break it out further, think about the policy wonks as those who have a ideologically committed to partisan views and those who have relatively objective information. how is all of these varying types of information integrated in your experience? since bruce has his hand up, we will go to him first. >> look, i think the definition of success is not what most of the political world thinks. it is not just winning

elections. it is not just let it -- legislative victories, but this certainly beat legislative failures. even if you pass a law, the work has just begun treating the real definition of policy and political progress is actual result, actual progress for the country. i think that is the hardest thing for a white house young worker to experience is successes policies that work. we have plenty of successes that were political successes, but the only reason that it stands as a real success is that helped move the but to people at a poverty and welfare as a way of life.

the white house is generally looking for short-term political victories in order to keep the bicycle and moving. that tension between the two tribes is always great. i can remember a few times where the hacks were so worried. we have a bill that had passed in congress and they turned it down. the political and communications advisor said that the president is busy and we need but that offer a couple of weeks. it took one of the wonks to point out if we waited two weeks that it would hit. i think to be in hacks are just -- i think the hacks are just doing their job.

the definition of success for his job was to get the president reelected. that is not the definition of success for a lot of the rest of us. we use that to our advantage. we have the madmen theory. are crazy political advisor was full of crazy ideas and three of 10 of them would have had some merit. the other seven would have a lead it to our media undoing. -- would have the led to our immediate and during -- undoing. i think the fact that the wonks are always fighting an uphill battle in that regard is one of the greatest challenges of the job. stu came in and told me a great tradition, and i love to hear from others, but he told me

that when he became domestic policy adviser, his republican predecessor had left a bottle of malt whiskey in the office safe which he said was a tradition that dated. >> that cannot be true. [laughter] >> when margaret came in, i left behind a bottle of whiskey as well. i think there is a breeze in the domestic policy advisers need to keep a bottle handy. -- i think there is a reason that that the domestic policy advisers need to keep a bottle handy. [laughter] >> first, for public record for the first time, after being nominated to go to brussels and been the massacre by president clinton with my name sent to the senate msenate mcclardy called

me over in may of the first administration and told me they needed more inexperienced in the white house. they said the president wanted me to stay there. i went back home to talk to my wife and she said, "if that is with the president wants, i do not think emma gets any belgian lace -- i do not think i will get any belgian lace." three days later, i was told of is going to brussels but it was good for me to give me an international reputation. i want to talk about events that occur that disturb this well- planned campaign promise that disturbed the organizational capacity. certainly jim had it with saddam hussein in the invasion of kuwait.

one, of it might have been better anticipated and one which could not then, but the test is how is a staff react. the iranian revolution when they came back to tehran and there were the consequences worldwide ever since. that would be something that it would have taken a creative genius to understand the forces leading to that. now, could we have a scene that the shah was on shaky ground? i want to talk with the hostage crisis and what we're doing domestically. i want to talk about the domestic impact which was rising gas prices because 5 million barrels of oil were taken out of production during the revolution because of the chaos in iran. it took me 30 minutes to fill

up, get to the white house, and deal with the problem. here is for the policy mistake was made. we do here is where the policy mistake was made. -- here is where the policy mistake was made. this was one of the worst mistakes i made. if we had recommended to the president the regulating the price of gasoline, there would have the -- and yes, we were all concerned about it during inflation and an initial spike in prices, but it was going to happen anyway. there would have been a market selling price, but there would have been no gasoline. the market would have sorted it out. it was an unexpected situation and we did not react to come in this respect, in ways. it bert and i disagree over that period -- bert and i disagreed

over that period lbj's guns and butter policy and continue because of oil shocks 90s in the 3-1974, also under carter which doubled the price of crude oil in a 12 month period. double the price of crude oil. it increased inflation from 7.5% to about 11%. now, the question is could this have been anticipated and could we have dealt with it in a better way? president nixon who put wage and price controls on us as a conservative president, at its president for who did the much with inflation now with the buttons. we did budget cuts, credit

controls, incentives, ranging -- raising price guidelines. the forces of inflation were so ferocious and we could have, perhaps, seen that better because inflation did go down during the ford. -- during the four. . -- during the ford period. against the fourth recession, we were going to stimulate the economy, create more public jobs, and we took our eye of the fact that the inflation was on a smoldering ember. it had not been extinguished. once it dawned on us that, in fact, this was getting into the wage price battle, all of these efforts made us look ineffectual because we were dealing with a ferocious external circumstance. it to his great credit, at the very end of his presidency

before the election and over the objection of his advisers, he finally said, president carter, we have a federal chairmanship to fill and i'm going to bring wolker in. he told him, if you appoint me, i'm with to raise interest rates and it is the only way to drain inflation now. we told them it was going to lose the election. he said that we have tried everything else and he was not we to hand his legacy over to his successor or if he had a second term, he is not which relieve inflation. he was very courageous in doing so. this is a question of the extra circumstance that perhaps might has been better anticipated -- this is a question of an external circumstance. because of the revolution, it would have been very, very difficult to avoid the consequences. it was the end of an economic

arab -- economic era. i would suggest that one of the things as i look back -- our fiscal policy was not stimulative. we had a very low budget deficit even with the stimulus packages, but we had a very expansionary monetary policy. the change in economics was basically he the end of this year and a focus on monetary policy of in a tight monetary policy parade ended up benefiting reagan and help lose our election. president carter did ultimately put in place that a policy that the with the inflation of the 1970's. -- a policy that adults with the inflation of the 1970's. he had been accused of talking down the dollar, having a low dollar to stimulate exports as part of the stimulus package.

he turned 180 degrees and became the inflation hawk and recommended that we drop the tax rebate, the $50 rebate, from the packet which had been designed to have no long-term budget impact and adjust to stimulate the economy. the president made the decision after the senate committee because of a woman calls a recommendation. -- because of bloomenthals recommendation. . shultz bill is that the 1977 stimulus package was the right thing to do to give the economy back on track. in 1978 stimulus package was a mistake read by that time, we should have seen the underlying inflation and not overstimulated the economy a second time. >> old models for integrating

for integrating -- for integrating considerations that were better with that lead to failure. it seems that the quality of the cases we have talked about are ones that were either very important political considerations were overlooked or sometimes once or political considerations were allowed to dominate despite important [uninteligible] >> one model is whether or not you weren't running for reelection and you have to worry about that. -- whether or not you are running for reelection. in december 1983, i work for the reagan administration and the tv came man -- and the td came on.

president reagan was in santa barbara for the weekend. atwater bob on the phone -- got on the phone. he said a low, the pentagon is handling it. finally i can't remember what reagan did come but he was the one on watch at that point. that was in 1983. compare that to 1985. he was a public relations -- a public relations fiasco. when president reagan visited this german cemetery. since there was no reelection campaign,the wonks could defeat

the hacks. >> the reason that i come to some extent, pushed back against the staff cedric formulation-c- centr -- staff-centric, is that presidents get the white house they deserve. it is not because the president -- the staff reflexive the president's personality. what that tells me is that at the end of the day, this integration of the policy considerations and the political considerations is one of the president's highest responsibilities. at the end of the day, that is a judgment that the president

cannot delegate when it really matters. presidents who are really good at taking -- keeping this to the things in balance are the ones who will succeed. the one to give too much weight to politics will win all of victories, at best. the ones who say damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead will be noble failures. i think that we can try to organize institutions to the best that human ingenuity and will allow. but, at the end of the day, institutions can perhaps muted the amplitude of the variations but they cannot substitute for win some -- wisdom of the person at the top. >> someone once joked that the

worst thing you say to carter was, "this will help you politically." that led him to take on every kind of difficult issue, energy and so forth, the panama canal, camp david, with manning situations. by the get might have succeeded in he might have ultimately been reborn -- reported. i think that is a mighty big if. >> amid to get you guys to come in -- i want to get you guys to come in. >> the white house really does two things. those two things are that things in the and that only a president

can do. you have to lead and inspire this enormous executive branch which is outside the borat -- outside the white house but is very real and very important. if they're not picking up on your attitudes, they're the people that americans deal with every day. you have to persuade members of congress to do things that they do not want to do. that often means doing things against their political interest like voting for the panama canal trade. that is something in the and that sending only the president can do. and then you have this role about speaking to the american public. really, only the american president can do that. people get elected -- people get elected have great strengths. you can easily elected president and not know very much about managing anything.

we have to be able to give a speech coming get people to follow you, you have to be able to have some talent in some other areas. ito had to know anything about managing. a lot of politicians live in a stream of information we needed to the white house, that stream of information is cut off. -- stream of information. when you get to the white house, that stream of information is cut off. this information all stops. i'd think this is a very important one. while i agree with you that presidents get the staff that the reserve -- that they deserve, led to their staff too late run a tremendous disadvantage.

this intellectual effort is well worth being engaged in. >> ford having not many leptin -- reelected -- for having not being reelected, he told kissinger that he was going to make an announcement that he is not going to run for reelection. kissinger for self-serving reasons and the public interest said he could not do that. he was reducing -- he was a neutralizing himself if you make that announcement at this stage. president ford said that he had a good point. >> that is an honest response. >> he probably been in office six months before he decided that he liked the job and could

not see anyone else around doing a better job than him so maybe he would run for office again. he still had not done anything. in fact, i think it was may of 1975 that i talked to donald runs fell one day and said, we were not doing anything to get elected -- donald rumsfeld. i said, if i may, can i go in and tell him. he said, you can go right on ahead. i went on to see the president and told him we were not doing enough to get elected. he said, "well, i figure this credit the party thinks i should be nominated, they will nominate me. if the country thinks i should be elected, they will let me."

that is the web have always done in my congressional district. -- that is the way i have always done its in my congressional district. he had to go out and get the delegates. still, we did not do anything until reagan. reagan is running and we needed to get going. the only thing that president ford [uninteligible] the worst thing you could do with ford was to tell him that sunday would help him politically because it would almost always do the other thing. -- was to tell him that something would help him politically.

president ford said kissinger to south africa, i believe, and everyone said it was a disaster. the president said it was the right thing to do. we have never really got started until it was too late. we virtually invited reagan into the campaign. it was touch and go all of the way and we barely made it. we would not have made it, in my opinion, except rockefeller took himself off the ticket. if we had been on the ticket, we could have not won some of the delegations, particularly mississippi. i think ford is an anomaly in the sense that he did whatever he wanted.

he did not want to run for president. he was forced into it by reagan entering into the campaign. once he got into it, he was enough of a competitor to say he was going to win and he went out to do that. he barely won the nomination and the general election. he made some mistakes, particularly freeing poland. >> and jim's point is so important and that is keeping your party united governing in going into your reelection. with respect to the 1976 campaign, your party was split by a more conservative camp -- a more conservative candidate, reagan. in 1980, we had the flip side. our party was divided between a

more liberal candid it, senator kennedy, and more conservative. senator kennedy spoke to the hearts of many -- to the hearts of many of the delegates. i have never seen such anchor and the budget cuts were required to do because of the inflation pretty cannot politically keep your own party together, it is very difficult to govern in a very difficult to get reelected. >> you not only need to keep your own party together, you need to keep your own white house together. people in the winehouse work on particular staffs. the work on domestic policy, the office of public liaison, the office of legislative affairs and that is where the bulk of your day is spent. you were gone that slice of the action. what presidents need is have presented for them and accurate

and as detailed a map as possible of what i like to call substantive and political realities. they have to understand the substance from the people who are in their policy regulation producing "the product," in the asa to understand what political realities are in respect to how they're going to deal with the congress, organized interest groups, the press, the public. in that respect, it is important for them to have someone. this is now gravitated to is the chief of staff's office to bring those elements together because the kinds of people that are attracted to positions in the policy operations are not necessarily people that have the

same skills that -- skill set as people who deal with outside constituencies. stu is in example as someone who worked well in both of those arenas, but the norm is you really need a place that is providing that coronation. presidents do have the staff that they select. they are the ones who are in charge. i think it was a real asset to president clinton to have someone like bruce they're willing to do what president clinton knew what needed to be done which is basically pull his party to a different part of the political spectrum on welfare reform. we had tried to get the essence of what welfare reform is, limits on the amount of time you can get, the work requirement and we were able to do it.

president clinton, i think it to his credit, with the support of some excellent staff work, he took it out. he vetoed it twice. when he finally signed it, the third time, he had two or three resignations of people who were in his and ministration who just thought he had capitulated -- who were in his administration who thought he had capitulated. it brews would know more about the internal account -- internal calculations are going on in his mind about why he vetoed it both times and was willing to sign in the third time. -- bruce would know more about the internal calculations. they need to understand

substantive rally in a literality and that ultimately makes the difference. substantive reality and political reality and that ultimately makes a difference. he'd have a place where these people come together. >> the difficulty in is that -- the difficulty is that if you put to much weight on the harley -- to much weight on the highly desirable outcome of keeping your party together, that almost, by definition, means you have to set aside or defer your most distinctive actor reads. so, bill clinton, not only on welfare but especially on trade, he had to choose between his conception of the long-term economic welfare of the country, a trade treaties, nafta, the

world trade organization freed he campaigned in spill some blood over the campaign will trade -- world trade organization. he campaigned and spilled some blood over the campaign over trade. you're not to state custodian of the status quo inside your own party. -- you are not just a custodian. the last thing we need now as custodians of the status quo. >> there are a lot of people talk about presidents were you could not tell them where moves would help them politically. i wonder if when they hear that they hear that it is irrational but will make you popular. >> away to associate myself with what bill has said about presidents who are responsible for their staffs that they

select. -- i want to associate myself with what bill has said. the staff might be picked because they're loyal but they do not have the background or experience. we've talked about extraneous events. ours was the release of the pentagon papers to the -- to " the new york times." unfortunately for the country, i was elected to the co-director of that unit. i think the three of us were not the varsity squad to do that kind of work. [laughter] i want to say that the rest is history. we need to look at domestic policy achievements in the nixon white house, things were going very well 1969 through 1971.

the glitch with the paper is an investigation led to watergate treated two of the folks at work for me in the rest of time -- rest of the time i worked there was about how we were going to handle it. when i think about what we could accomplish in the second term -- it really deflected people's attention and snapped their energy. it was harder to be aggressive in 1973-1974 when some attention was on a surviving. when you talk about the loyalty and experience, you need to select people to come on to the staff who have experience, backgroundst,u had before he joined the staff initially -- people on the staff of experience, background. stu have that background before he joined that particular staff.

there is great value in having that. unfortunately, we had a strong stake up -- a strong chief of staff, but the level in washington was not high. we had some members of the staff who really did know how to work in washington that there were not necessarily listening. the president often responded to those who have not had that experience. i does want to make, to align myself with that. when you come into the white house staff, you have this wonderful into the, the office of management and budget, and there are people out there whose careers have been in the substantive areas. we had guys like sam hughes who knew how to organize the government and we listened to them, after a while. [laughter]

>> i was just going to say that the notion that the president gets the staff he deserves it is certainly, in the scheme of things, well taken but there are exceptions to every rule. the exception i think of it, for one, is the iran situation. it is not to say that reagan did not ultimately bear responsibility for of the people involved, but there are some wrinkles that are worth noting. for example, in 1981 there is a conference room, room 2 08, it was the old office for the secretary of state. if there is a long term planning job inside the white house for reagan is that they said they

need to create a situation. it would not we take this conference room -- why do we not take this conference room and turned into another sitting room? and so they did. if you're a colonel in the pentagon, you need to know which is sitting room you're going to all groups of people need to get access to the room 208 sitting room. the can make things happen in a way where things got out of control under the rest of them. little things about organization in the white house matter a lot. reading the equivalent and handing it out to people proved

to be a huge mistake. >> it sounds like the presidents at the white house staff that they deserve, unless they get one that is worse. [laughter] so, the question is there a way that they get at least what they deserve? i think this was a matter of an attention -- of inattention. >> combined with entrepreneurship at a lower staff level. >> if we were all treated according to desserts, none of us would escape with any. a little humility does a long way here. >> one of the things i think we need to recognize about organizing a white house staff is the powerful impact that campaign staff has. all this have gone through this, but for the public that has

since, as difficult as a governing is, it is excruciating the number of hours you have to work in the white house. nothing compares to working on a presidential campaign because it is all or nothing pretty to make a mistake in the white house coming have another day pre make a mistake on the campaign trail, you do not. the people who start with the president during the time his first running, the loyalists where he is barely known and go to the snows of iowa, and to new hampshire, you build a bond with the president, a lot of loyalty and trust, that cannot be substituted by others. that is why it is so difficult to take that group, which having worked so hard, can already see their seats in the white house. you need to tell them, we have to bring some experience into this. it is a very difficult thing to have to do and to commence the president of. the ones who can do, the

president to can do that, and say to the staff that you're going to have a position, but we need to bring some other people and, those of the ones who are at the end they can mix the loyalty with the experience. you need both. they will be the most successful presidents. the me tell you that it is not easy, even for the president allowed to say that to someone who's been with him for two years when no one thought he had a chance and they thought it was even more difficult for those of the people who may be a believable human sacrifices to be told that they're not wearing to get their preferred position. -- that they're not going to get their preferred position pre >> we have to close. preferred -- preferred position. we have to close. i would think our panelists. thank you. -- i want to thank our panelists. [applause]

>> it just an additional word or two real >> of these places remind me of modern cathedrals that donors would build wings onto hoping it would go to heaven. >> he would like to see a few changes to the higher education system. >> i think, for example, a princeton philosophy lectures could been on the web. i think these wonderfully concentrated islands of talent and wealth should be opened up to the larger society and not call-in -- not cultishly capt. "lost in the meritocracy.' you can download the podcast. >> this week, but prime minister gordon brown discusses

government spending and job losses. also the unrest in iran