said instead that they are all really grouped together. there are the same but to not pander or titillate and we will find differently. it almost open the door to what will probably happen with golden globes. it had the opportunity to say that new the sea is different. it did not. it said that this fleeting exposure is different from the other fleeting expletives because here, it is to pander. i am trying to figure out how there is to be cbs or anybody to be put on notice that is spoken vulgarity cannot be analogized when in your very own opinion where you have imagery, and mike fox, unlike pacifica, you have imagery and it does not draw any distinction at all between the two fleeting things. . . \

>> there is no further analysis to take place within a material. that has not been the policy. >> tell me where it has not

>> here is what the commission policy was. we will examine the material according to contextual analysis. it would be irrelevant for words and images. in 1987, the commission made clear that it applies to non literal expletives. it did not say -- specifically said that descriptive words would fall outside the exception. >> what is not literal expletive? -- a non-liberal expletive? >> the use of faye -- and on a literal expletive -- non-liberal expletive -- non-liberteral expt

to. >> like what bono said. >> the wanted to make clear that it was -- they were wanting to preserve the requirement that there needed to be repetition. with regard to everything else, that is what they were saying before applying a contextual analysis across the board. that included wordsas well. so, the point is, that there should be no surprise that cases after that, the complex to analysis -- the contextual analysis -- what is surprising is that he is surprised by that.

have issued orders besides leading words or images? >> >> bass said it was a non- fleeting -- they said it was a non-fleeting image. it is usually near a subset of the decency cases. there was an exemption to the context of analysis that gave them a free pass. our point is that there was a narrow exception in place at the time. it never applied to images. what she did to the contextual analysis -- once you get to the

contextual analysis if the commission was unreasonable in finding that that was indecent under the context analysis, while the images were fleeintin, determine if it is patently offensive. banobody could really make the serious argument that that would be reasonable. unless cbs has this exception, they really have no objection. to make a different argument, to make an argument that this is very confusing and they did not

have any notice and the commission acknowledged that when there was no reason for a broadcaster to know the commission's policy, then it would be a violation of due process. >> it seems that the fleeting materials exception seems to be the norm. not to contest what analysis. -- not the contextual analysis. >> there is no case that applied an exception. >> that seemed to be the case in the george carlin monologue and the bono statement and in the coal ritchie statement -- the nicole retreat statement -- nicole ritchie statement.

>> those cases were words cases. that is the whole point. the commission changed its position. >> what a case that's -- what case says that images are different? where the fcc said that words are different. >> there is an applied contest will analysis to images -- and applied contextual analysis to images. the commission found that this quick disagreement was an embodiment of the statement.

that 1987 order, which draws a distinction, is entirely inconsistent with the policy. the case came before the super bowl and stated exactly that. they said there was a fleeting image in that case and they found that that fleeting image was indecent. this court said that that was a divergence from the prior policy. there was no prior policy. putting that aside, we think that it is confirmed by the supreme court. that is unmistakable notice to cbs. before the super bowl, there was a decision that the commission issued that said that this is a

fleeting image and this is indecent. i think that cbs had notice in 1987, but they absolutely had notice with young. >> if that had not been there, the fleeting image would have been just fine. >> there is no pandering. it was not graphic or explicit. >> but the pandering and titillated was the only basis on which -- titillating was the only basis on which they were different from other remarks. " there are other factors besides leading -- >> of there are other factors

besides fleeting. >> have they penalize or issued a penalty for exclusively fleeting images or words? >> i think that the fox case involves words that were fleeinting. >> is this the first case where the commission had determined that the conduct was fleeting and issued a penalty? >> they made the determination. these cases are rare. >> it is just that there is a real concern to avoid excessive punishment for combat as a accidental or spontaneous.

does that favor your opinion? >> i think that goes to the willfulness. did the commission reasonably determined that the halftime show would be broadcast with this? should it be held responsible? they had no idea that this was one to occur. they did not know that there would be in a position where they were broadcast it. the commission pointed out that were alarmed by the audio and visual script. there were concerns -- they were alarmed by the audio and visual script. there were concerns.

the most important than was that janet jackson's choreographer had said that there would be shocking moments. cbs have the duty to investigate. >> there is no evidence that he actually knew that the event was one to take place. >> that is right. they have the ability to impose a in a video delay. the problem was, they had an audio delay, which did them no good at all got justin timber like ripped janet jackson's top of -- at all when justin timber lake ripped the janet jackson's

top off. they would hold cbs libel. the implemented delay at the grammy awards. -- that implemented the delay at the grammy awards. -- they implemented the delay at the grammy awards. the fact is, on page 72 of the appendix, cbs cites its own press release that the day after the super bowl, they would use a video delay. >> if you do not prevail on the apa argument, what is the point? >> this court was not convinced by our in france that -- by our

inference that cbs had the ability for a delay. it is odd to say that a video delay system was not available seven days before. >> it is pretty much the norm, isn't it? >> i do not know. i do not know what cbs does now. it should be the norm. is something like this happens, i do not think there would have any defense. -- they would have any defense. as the court laid out, this applies to the violations.

in another section, it does. their approach was to take the high road in this matter. they're wanted apply both to be and to be -- both to b and to d. >> i think that the court has explained that this was an admission of an act. it fell within the language of the mission. this court has held that recklessness satisfies the issue. in this case, recklessness

satisfies both b and d. you understand that this is implicit. the court did not explain the interrelationship between b and d. they would have the opportunity to explain why. we do not have an objection to that. i would acknowledge that the commission would benefit from statutory interpretation. on on constitutional issues, i do not think that should be addressed at this time. if the commission adheres -- if

the commission provides the basis for a forfeiture, been cbs will address the constitutional questions. -- and then cbs will address the constitutional questions. -- then cbs will address the constitutional questions. it is true -- >> let's assume that they did. >> i only wanted to point out that they did not make it in their supplemental briefs and i do not see it stated in the reply. i see cases in their opening brief that are also cited with vagueness issues. if they made it, fine. obviously, they continue. what is striking is that there

is no heading involved and i did not see any sentence that stated that the rules were unconstitutional. they have other arguments that they make. >> what is your position on the vagueness issue? >> out position is two points. it is not recognized by president -- by president -- by perecedent. justice ginsberg said that they see this same formulation.

the supreme court upheld pacific up and we do not see any way around -- upheld pacifica and we do not see any way around that. >> i am not so sure that you can rely on what the supreme court said after pacifica. at least you had an exception for a fleeting -- for fleeting words. >> i don't think there is a vagueness challenge to be made here as far as cbs not being on notice. i do not see it as a general matter.

i felt to see how they can say that they were under any misimpression. again, the way to look at this is if they couldn't come to this court and tell them that. it is unclear to us that that would be constitutionally sound. >> that is another way to deal with the vegas issue. >> i think the supreme court upheld a this. it does not make any sense. they put some material off the table. if the objection is that it is vague, i do not know that the indecency analysis is any more.

it does not mean that -- it does not mean that it is vague, at it just has a connection will -- contextual analysis. they did not address the policy without regard. in a sense, the idea is that because it is contextual, that argument is proven by pacifica. even though it may not be precisely clear in every case how the commission would come out. the commission las tried to do this. it was meant to give broadcasters an idea of how the framework would be. the commission took care to explain how comes out case by

case. really, there is a body of a wall -- body of law which can explain how the commission would come out in particular cases. >> there was a discussion of young a little earlier. if that was not scripted, it was pretty close to being scripted. in terms of the fleetingness in regards to this case, it appears they are on different sides of the spectrum. >> i think they were both less than one second. >> the actual image. >> the actual damage. i do not agree your belief that

it was scripted. while they were being interviewed, they were in robes and were naked underneath and i guess nobody figured out that if you sit under hot television lights, when you get up, the road does not necessarily get up with you. -- b. breaux -- the robe does not necessarily get up with you. they put themselves in a situation where this happened. cbs had a number of indications that it would have been a good idea to put a video delay in place here. they were pushing the envelope. while they could not anticipate what was quick to happen, that

is the entire purpose of having made the leas system. >> we will give you some more time. >> i was interested in your last comment, but i had a question about the recklessness standard. you said that cbs omitted doing a number of things that it should have done. you just mentioned the delay. i have an understanding that has to do with their knowledge. they said that it would ignore the risk. that is the kind of recklessness that i am thinking about. you would suggest that they may be held reckless. could you elaborate? >> the commission explained that if it were not in their duty to take precautions, even when you do not know needed to will be

displayed, you would bring together a volatile mix of performances and ignore warning signs and alarm bells because they do not know that anything happened. it is as if they pulled out a bunch of rags. >> this suggests to me that big -- because of the people that were involved, and a volatile may have occurred? >> they did identify the statement. the record does show that cbs was discussing their concerns

about what the visual script would be. there were comments on other performances as to how long the video delay would be. there were a number of cases -- pieces of evidence that should have put cbs on notice. if they do for certain that this was one to happen, we make sure that this does not happen. if they are running a risk and they perceive, nonetheless, in the face of that risk, but to take an available precaution, then i think and the commission is justified and forfeiture. >> -- and justified in

forfeiture. -- justified in portraiture. -- a forfeiture. -- forfeiture. >> thank you, your honor. i would like to make just eight points. to answer the -- just a few points. the initial brief of cbs in pages 40-52 address that issue. i believe that he misspoke in his last few minutes on the floor when he talked about questions that came up during the planning and video the late. as we discussed -- and the video

delay. there was no discussion of the of the lead because no -- of the video delayed because none had ever been used. -- of a video delay because none had ever been used. when it was before you the last time, it argued that the distinction between images and words is obvious and the fcc policy but is unstated. after it has argued the fox case, it's argument is that the policy was stated, but not so obvious that the fcc ever sighted at -- ever cited it in any case. secondly, you can remove the

discussion altogether. >> is that the test? we have -- do we need to have found the matter before us being argued was a central -- was essential to the decision? or do we rethink and change our minds? >> certainly rethink the issue, but the question is whether the citation of that language is

implied. >the supreme court itself looked at the fcc citation of that language and said that it was an irrelevant detour and it was not want to decide the information. you recall that the fcc had tried to argue that the fox broadcast would have been in its final policy. it found that the fcc's altman explanation, where it acknowledged its change in policy was sufficient to survive under analysis.

>> mr. lewis pointed out the language under 1812 in the fox decision. where the courts said the reasons for treating the isolated not literal -- isolated, but non-liberal -- non-liberal -- non-literal uses of the words. doesn't that seem to support mr. lewis's argument? >> it does support the decision in fox where it was distinguishing between liberal and i'm liberal -- literal and non-literal use. while that may have been something that the supreme court sided with, deciding that the

explanation was sufficient was in the remand order. you could say that it was pandering and so on. it is important to note that the constantly changing factors at play here are the george carlin monologue. those were not a literal use. those words were not all but a literal use. -- not a literal use. it is a second, independent reason why the case should be evaluated. >> is there anything else you would like to say? >> i feel like someone being asked for his last words.

this case was very well argued and very well briefed. we would like to have a transcript made of the argument and ask that you share that. if you would check with the clerk's office, they will tell you how to do that. the court will take the matter under advisement. we think the council again. >> for more information on the case, go online and click on america -- "america and the courts." >> in a few moments, the director of national intelligence, dennis blair. in about an hour, rep as to any lawyer on fiscal responsibility. after that, the kao is a tent -- pcato institute.

>> on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will speak with senator jeff bingaman. howard rosen will explain how the unemployment insurance works. our guests include roslyn broughck. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the new c-span video library is a digital archive of c-span programming. from barack obama to ronald reagan and everywhere in between. this is now available to you. it is fast and free. try it out. >> over 1000 middle and high

school students injured in the student competition. we will announce the winning entries. >> now, dennis blair, the director of national intelligence. he spoke at kansas state university. this is an hour. >> thank you for that kind introduction. it is a great pleasure to have such a distinguished graduate as a former colleague. i had done little intelligence on this occasion and i was told that bomb threats were primarily exam week phenomenon. i thought i was safe, but obviously, that was not very accurate either.

thank you for your flexibility in changing venues. i will be signing class excuses to miss the rest of the afternoon after the for marks. --i will be signing class excuses to miss the rest of the afternoon right after these remarks. before, general miers knows the pressure i am feeling right now, having to follow in the distinguished footsteps of senator bob dole, secretary of defense bob gates. these were native kansans who had an inherent advantage. presidential, dr. regan, thank you for the opportunity to get the word out about the good things the u.s. intelligence community is doing now. i think most of you know that, and we heard in the introduction, that dick is a fighter pilot, which means that

even when he is on the ground, he likes to drive fast in his corvette around northern virginia. you have probably seen him at the annual harley days football game, riding his bike around the building. he is well known in the washington, d.c area for writing that bike during the rolling thunder run, when hundreds of thousands of bikers converge on the nation's capital on memorial day and ride together to show support for the efforts to find veterans who are still missing from our past conflicts. when the general was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he always wrote his harley in and rode around with those who are supporting the veterans. i am not a biker myself, but i can appreciate the intelligence that general myers gathered on the road. i recently found a document that i swiftly declassified so i could share it with you. that is one of the things i do.

[laughter] it was called "richards rules of the road." it contained a number of nuggets of wisdom distilled over the ages, such as, when you are writing in the lead, do not spit. well-trained reflexes are quicker than luck. there are those who have crashed and those who will crash. if you really want to know what is happening, look at least five cars ahead, and never be ashamed to unlearn an old habit. dick, thank you for all the wisdom and for the friendship over many years. it is wonderful to see other leaders here from many fields. i would like to recognize a few other friends who are with us. randy o'boyle who headed the air force rotc program here for several years, and dale, a colleague of many years who

invited the former first visit here in 2002. he is a very distinguished scholar of the soviet union and of russia, and we once took a trip together over to russia. and the soldiers of the big red one. the headquarters is over in iraq right now. my background is navy, but i have learned to speak a little army. your honor us all with your presence, and we thank all of you for coming. [applause]

i understand that this sort of greeting is typical of away our troops are supported in this area day in and day out. junction city and manhattan have become famous for their hospitality and care for the big red one. it is a remarkable relationship. i understand there are partnerships between the sports teams and first division units, with personal visits back and forth to see what it is like to be in the other person's shoes, or boots. videos from the latest games are sent to those on deployment. the women's basketball team with the first brigade, and the men's basketball team with the field artillery, first lightning. this is the only place i have heard that has such an amazing and wonderful program. we all appreciate it who have served time in uniform.

ladies and gentlemen, it is a special privilege, as you can see, for me to be here in kansas state university. i have been tremendously impressed by this institution, not just a beautiful campus, but i am impressed by the breadth of what you do, the broad range of issues you engage in the life of the university. offering an outstanding education to students from around the country and around the world, you are working on the big issues that face our country both here at home and internationally. this afternoon i would like to talk about the intelligence community, who we are, what is we do, and some of the issues we are dealing with right now. before leaving this room, i would like to make a shameless pitch to some of you to come join us in the important work of intelligence.

first, a quick description of the intelligence community that i lead as the director of national intelligence. as the general mentioned, we are 16 different agencies, mostly parts of other parts of our government. the central intelligence agency is independent. the cia is responsible for human intelligence, recruiting spies, and also for taking the information collected by all the agencies to produce analyses for policy makers and four officials in the field. four of the biggest agencies are in the department of defense, the national security agency responsible for gathering communications, voice, video, and data from around the world. the national ngo spatial agency produces analyses, and videos

and turns them into reports and maps. the defense intelligence agency primarily serves military officials and units in the field. the national reconnaissance office launches and operates the satellites that collect intelligence information from orbit. the fbi is responsible for gathering intelligence on threats within the united states, and the homeland security department is also responsible for tracking threats in this country and working closely with state, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations. that leaves eight other members of the community that include the intelligence organizations from each of the five armed forces and from the state department, a financial intelligence organization within the department of the treasury, a nuclear intelligence agency in the department of energy, and the intelligence arm of the drug enforcement agency.

just a simple description of the different parts of the intelligence community illustrates the complexity involved in bringing them together. the key is to integrate the 16 organizations so that viet mazing different abilities and skills they bring are focused on the right mission and they can work together. that is really my job as director of national intelligence. the first step is to set the overall goals of the enterprise. we have done that international intelligence strategy. there are four. the first is to enable national security policies. we do that by monitoring and assessing the international security environment so we can warned policy-makers of the threats and alert them to the

opportunities. we provide daily intelligence briefings to the president himself. our job is not to decide policies, but to make sure that those who do can make want -- wise policies. our second goal is to support national security action, and that means delivering actionable intelligence to diplomats, organizations and the bill, and to domestic law enforcement organizations. this includes thousands of intelligence officers, provincial reconstruction teams throughout iraq, and the military units that are driving the taliban out of helmand province. we need to make tough choices to invest in the right new satellites, computers, information networks, aircraft, and software programs to make our intelligence officers even

more capable in the next generation. our four strategic goal is to function as an integrated team. these four goals for the intelligence community seem fairly straightforward. back during the cold war when our fundamental intelligence organization was put together, they probably would have been relevant. what has changed? there have been three major seismic shifts since that time that have made a fundamental difference to the intelligence community. these have affected all of our national security organizations, but especially important for intelligence.

let me take you back to the first words ever uttered in a landon lecture by governor clinton himself. he said we must face the challenges of new realities of international life today. 23 years after he spoke those words, there was a big new reality. the berlin wall came down. before then, our intelligence mission was to steal secrets about the soviet union. we recruited spies and recruited analyst to understand its military capabilities and its actions around the world. retrained linguists and drug tunnels -- dug tunnels. we built a huge ship to pick up a single submarine on the floor of the pacific ocean. when the cold war ended, it affected our inter approach to intelligence. in the 1980's, our primary focus on latin america was on what the soviets were doing in cuba and nicaragua and granada. now after the cold war, we have to understand the trends in the

region more deeply on their own terms as well as in terms of threats and the opportunities they offer for the united states. let's let it just one country, colombia. it matters because it is the primary source of cocaine coming into the united states. the intelligence community is expected to provide analyses of the drug organizations there. this intelligence is essential to solid american policies for colombia. the united states has assisted and is still insisting colombia to defeat the farq organization. the threat from a global competitor could destroy this country. it made the job intelligence agencies more complex and more difficult. we had been set up to focus on a single adversary over a long period of time. of a sudden we had to keep watch on the entire world in a more detailed and dynamic way, and covering threats to our national interest and be alert for opportunities to advance

those interests. since the end of the cold war, depending on how you count, the u.s. has been involved in about 15 major deployments of military force. many of them have been to places we would not have predicted in the 1980's. bosnia, iraq, panama. for many areas in which there are crises, the intelligence community has been called on to understand a society, the issues, the country, the region. decisions were made as to whether we should use military or diplomatic tools. once a decision is made that the united states will act, the intelligence community was called on for a fine detailed intelligence. to stabilize troubled societies and establish long-term arrangements to put the country's back on their feet. the second hinge point, about the same time the cold war was

ending, has been the information revolution. in the 1980's, the first intermission networks began to be deployed in a serious way. it is not surprising that an information revolution would shake business intelligence to its core. intelligence is about collecting sharing and using information. networks changed our access to information and to one another. they totally changed how we do business. building and using data sources, sharing audio and video files so we can work lover to lee and more quickly. and so that we can -- so we can work collaboratively and more quickly. the term "connect the dots" is often misused, but it has a large grain of truth.

there are so many data sources, some that intelligence agencies maintained like files and satellite imagery, that goes back decades. some are available in the public domain, like research papers. the challenge is to find the right information, to understand its validity, and to put it in context, and to get it done in time for a policy maker in washington or an officer in the field to be able to use it. we use many of the tools familiar to you at k state. we use web sites that look very much like what you probably used to keep up with your fields of interest. rss feeds coming in with new information on the subject. links to previous information that has been done on a subject. unlike the open academic work, -- the open academic world, we

have some constraints on working together. the more we linked our intelligence data sources together, the more they become vulnerable. one enemies by can do more damage than one could years ago -- 1 enemy spy can do more damage than one could years ago. while we take advantage of all the tools of the information revolution, we have to build a security features on are connections, and these are expensive, and a slow us down some. the information revolution is giving us better tools to do our job. it is important because it is fundamentally collecting -- affecting our collection of information as well as sharing and analysis.

the information we want, in order to find out what others are thinking, is stored in shared in their networks, so that is where i go to get it. foreign governments communicate on networks. terrorist organizations like al qaeda use the internet to put out their messages. drug traffickers have to communicate to sen shipments and receive payments. organizations which are interested in store their information electronically, not in paper and file cabinets. one of the major growth areas in gathering intelligence is penetrating foreign networks and bringing that information back to analysts to write reports to inform our policymakers. in this area, i cannot give you many specific examples, since they are classified. it is not difficult to imagine the value of being able to read the e-mail some foreigner who is involved in a plot against the united states.

the third hinge point was 9/11 and the effect has been profound. as the 9/11 commission stated, exposed internal barriers to sharing that prevented the intelligence committee from understanding the threat that was forming against us in the months leading up to that attack. our enemies were seamless, we were compartment. there were pieces of intelligence that were held but agencies that were not shared or analyzed to warn about a tax so that we could stop them. the difficulties of sharing between agencies that were focused on foreign intelligence and those that were focused on law-enforcement and domestic security on the other hand were laid bare by that incident. in addition, we discovered as a nation that our armed forces did not defend us against every threat, that our nuclear weapons did not deter every enemy from attacking us. it was those 9/11 attacks and the investigations afterwards that led to legislation in 2004 that reorganized intelligence community in fundamental ways.

the position of director national intelligence was established at that time in order to bring together a more integrated than an agile intelligence community and to address these new threats that were emerging. for the first time, domestic law enforcement and security organizations, the fbi, the new department of homeland security, were included in the intelligence community so that we understood threats. new organizations were established to focus different agencies on missions that all needed to work together. so here we are, 20 years since the end of the cold war, well into the information revolution, eight years since

9/11, five years since the director of national intelligence was established. how is it going? are we really as integrated and agile as we need to be? are we on top of developments in china, iran, and afghanistan, as well as al qaeda, and drug cartels, and global warming? my answer, after a little over you are on the job, is that we are doing well, but we are not satisfied, and we still have to continue to evolve and improve. let me start with the subject of integration of the community, the sharing of information and teamwork. overall, we are more unified as a community than were five years ago. we do a better job of sharing intelligence and building mission teams to work on problems that we need different skills from different agencies to solve.

as general myers knows, we -- with your something similar in 1986. legislation told the armed forces were together as a team. it took decades after that legislation to overcome all the negative aspects óf rivalry among the army, navy, air force, and marine corps. i remember very clearly when and move happen. i had been in a navy uniform for 18 years. like my contemporaries, i was not enthusiastic about joint operations with other services. i figured if we just brought them up to navy standards, we would be fine. i have to tell you, i was wrong. the armed forces are much more effective now because they are working together than they were never fighting separately, mostly over who was in charge, rather than against the common enemy. i see the same progress in the intelligence community. like the armed forces, we have made it a requirement that an intelligence officer sir fourth time outside of his or her parent agency in order to reach -- served for a time outside his parent agency to reach higher ranks. while there are still instances

in which intelligence is not shared with other agencies, they are fewer than before and more the exception than the rule. never be ashamed to unlearn an old habit. the primary lesson for the intelligence community from 9/11 was that we need to share information. . . there is access to different sources. the problem was, we were unable to put these different pieces of them permission to gather in time and ordered to issue theth at and we are working on that problem. that is integration. what about the ability?

are we able to flex our resources? i believe that we can. perhaps we cannot look five cars down the road, but we are looking ahead more than one or two and we are adjusting to whatever it is that we see. last year, when the swine flu was a frightening threat, the intelligence community mobilized together. we found experts to make sense of it. we provided solid assessments to decision makers on the extent of the epidemic under various conditions although we did not keep a terrorist off a flight, last year, we stopped -- an attack in new york city. we arrested several other americans that were planning to

blow public buildings right here in the united states. last september, months of painstaking work by the intelligence community led to the announcement by our president that the iranians have been constructing a secret centrifuge facility to enrich uranium and that they have been concealing it from the international atomic energy commission. these are a few of the examples of the excellent work being done by the intelligence committee in new areas. i can assure you that none of us believes that we can rest on our laurels. there is much more to be done. let's turn to the future and tell you about the priorities for the intelligence community. what is that we are working on as we move forward. some of our missions remain traditional. we assess the intentions and capabilities of other nations states.

even though the cold war is over, we need to know a lot about russia. with its new european security proposal and its vast energy reserves. we need to understand if it will work with us. . . it is going to be interesting when the chinese students take their tradition back to china. can you imagine them dancing? russia and china are not the enemies they were in the past. there are many areas in which we

cooperate, but we still need to know what they say about us in secret. we are learning every day about iran and north korea. these areas threaten regions where we have allies and vital interests -- vital interests. we're learning everything we can about these organizations that threaten our lives. i am talking about outside and the groups inspired by it. i am also talking about drug trafficking organizations. we are exploring the megatrends, economic exports. weç are staying of bread of -- abreast of international trade.

we have peopleç setting implications of climate change. we need to be able to support humanitarian relief organizations, such as those going on in haiti now, where they are showing exactly where problems are located and where help is needed in that country. we track international oil and gas development. they can and do affect u.s. supplies syrian -- supplies. we're working to stay current in areas like biotechnology. it is a to edge sword, and we need to make sure we use the edge of the sword that benefit the country and that we minimize the danger the other side of the sword will hurt us.

right now, the defendersç have all much more difficult time than the attackers. this is a time whenw3 the threas could affect a student or a resident evenç more than what we think of as traditional attacks or bombs. nobody wants to be the victim of some theft. no one wants to have to worry about biological warfare, strikes against critical infrastructure lifo oil and gas industry or food crisis. -- infrastructure like oil and gas industry or food crisis. it was bad enough with the super bowl. you can imagine what a real threat would be like. we have the defense facility on its way to manhattan, and despite the recession have to be managed, you as a community have

embraced it. ou understand id with the institute, this is clearly the right community to host id. i want to say i believe you're doing a great service by taking that on. we will send the money but keep the bureaucrats in washington. the real challenge of all these subjects is to understand the different kinds of interactions, nation states, international organizations, megatrends. how all these play out will give opportunities on how to advance this interesting. they interact in interesting ways. in mexico, drug trafficking organizations were a threat.

they can be more of a threat if they are linked to extremist, but they're also an opportunity for cooperation between the united states and mexico. cyber crime is a threat, but it also represents an opportunity when in the private sector and with many governments in the far east the share our goals of having an internet use for legal purposes. at the technological level, we can also take the view that what has happened since 9-11 has been a challenge and an opportunity. al qaeda uses global communications affectively, not just for propaganda but÷ for logistics, moving money, and ñri]w3ko;orinternal communicati. it has held in areas like explosives. related to the, the trend of global media played an important role. now more than ever, one person causingç casualties and have a

huge impact on the worldw3i]. one man change airport's security around the world so we have to take off our shoes of. technology helps us, too. weekend connect the dots. once we get a lead, we can quickly sour repositories for more clues, but as we learned on christmas day, we needzvw s÷ç[ço search data sources maintained by different agenciesçççç fr workingok on that. let me turn to some concerns i haveç for the future asñr we pe this difficult issueç. one major concern is the measure of success for theç intelligen1 çcommunityw3xd encountering vit çmçi]extremism has beenç nt

perfection. we are expected to find ever thought. let'sç look if the reality. perfection is impossible given that the united states is an engine for globalization. çin 2008, we had millions who came, includingçóqi] two attend foreign universities. that is good for the states and for their home countries. how much should we be expected tot( know about every person tht enters our borders. what is fair? when it comes to americans, a free society where we enjoy civil liberties and our citizens expect privacy, that does run some risk for reagan we can eliminate risk with the government that has the right to gather of limited information,

turn that over two intelligence services, but we do not want to live like fat. where do we want to draw the -- live like that. where do we want to draw the line? here is the reality with terrorism. ó2tqwhen you strip out of fear d use common sense. last year weçç haveç 14,000 homicides in this country. you know how many people were killed in the u.s.çç soilxd we deaths were tied to international extremist groups? 14, and the falls to zero if you're looking at those perpetrated directed by foreign extremists. success or failure should not only be measured in lives lost. it should also be measured in lives saved. that is probably harder to do than anything. even one violent extremist strakes five people. it cannot be treated solely of

the number. when somebody breaks into your that matters the most. it is your sense of security. success has to be incredibly çhigh,t( because mistakes are ourselves about the times we fall short, but i cannot promise you the intelligence community will be able to stop every attack by a violent extremist groups like al qaeda. as a country, we cannotç allowa successful attack to diminish our way of life. if that happens, violent extremists win. remember the rules of the row. there are those that have crashed and those that will crash. what we must do is survive so it does not happen again.

a related concern i haveç is to increase openness in the intelligence community without giving away secrets. it is part of the reason i am here. i want to take some of the i]mystery and the man is out of the intelligence communityxdç - and the minister --ççç menact of the intelligence community. american should be proud that we are protecting the privacy is under the constitution and that n accordance withution and that american valuesko in everythinge do. iw3 truly believe the more opene are the easier it is for us to do our job, vico's then it becomes more apparent we are providingçç -- because then it becomes more apparent we're providingq safety and that we ae doing ourç job without

infringing upon civil liberties of americans. we are primarily focused on foreign thrust. çwe have to worry about it when they have connections that threaten us from within. of all the secrets that exist, there are countless of we do not infringe upon, like howt(ç theç series "lost" isç going to win. you may think the guy in the jayhawks costumeç isç a diffet story, but we have to protect him,ç too, unless he is a terrorist, which we believe he is. [applause] -- [laughter] çour world is a worldçt(ç of. now our people join for patriotic motives. their concern isç protectingw3e

freedom of americans. çi want them to be proud of wht they do, and i want you to be proud of them, too. we believe if the public understands a little bit more about what we do and why we do çit, we will be a stronger nation. yes, weç suspect theyt( haveçe terrorist attacks. we doç not torture them, but we areç investigating new ways to interrogate them. maybe we should have coach martin go into our room and stare at them for a while. i understand that is pretty effective. çif we're really going for a tm work, for the month of 50 line -- the 50 yard line and have you all intimidate them. as we often do in this century, çthe intelligence communityçs w3zyçç magnificent experience in american democracy.

can we operate a large and effective intelligence enterprise by deferring to american principles of openness and respect for privacy? we think we can. we think we are doing it every day. that brings me to myç final flight, because i want to take advantage and do shameful recruiting. all of you wild cats, i hope you decide where to do your coat -- your post college life, that as many of you as possible consider the intelligence occupation. f3j0v up with a list of the best places çççto work in government. 31 organizations were on it, and the intelligence community was çranked no. 4. more than half the people who now work in the intelligence community came to us after 9-11. they want to defend the country.

they enjoy being part of an hon.ok profession. i do not understand these rivals. we are among the most difficult to get into. among our agencies, we can sometimes receive 5000 applicants a month. only 10% make it through the process, which comes with five krug investigations, psychological tests, and a polygraph. plus, you need math skills, but if you are interested, i want to encourage you. persistenceçç is everything. (b5vt

historians, political scientists, cyber security specialists. çwe need engineers to work one weçooç needqççç businessi] who can buy technology and make mçmuch for it. ççwe needççç analystçç we çó we colley day. ççfno carrierringconnect 24001 if you have the signs of becoming a rocket scientist, there may be a place for you. for those of you taking foreign

language besides engineering, i çhave just one thing to say. okçi]gracias,çóçç mercio idea how important"tq language skill is for the intelligence community, even engineering. it is also important to truly understanding anotherxd culture, soç ifw3mç your first or secod generation american who already ãounderstands another culture, e would love toç have you. youççñoxhaveç?9xzñdçç somef v(tl. çmk[çif y'u security and intelligence. 40ççç slots,çç twow3 weeks. ççç?3the weatherççxdç i. travel expenses,ççççççñr . ñrt(çw3çççtriage.

you might like it. iç think the deadlineç is comg march 7. it hasç been wonderful to be here. qthank you for participating. çi wóu like to take a few questions. ççxdççççççóçqçç[appla] vd;a v&q&yqi ñy+.:(am patience. threeçó locationsç instead of t two. çyçjjrçw3 wuezw3 out of til cutok the questionsxdç of, and1 really appreciatew3ymym everyboy comingç out today. kç?;mçírzo

çan on-line groups recently sht down the home page for the group in this. xdhowç canq anyone hope to como çterms withç such an overwhelg i]network? mçi]t(ymç?;yçççç>> therey answer. ó9u is easier for someone whoq wants to do something bad then itç is for something good. last year one of the big internet security companies came up with a statistic there were more illegal applications designed for the internetç then

it turns out a lot of this can be done with some of the basic things that people do not take the time to doç. the rest of it we have to do too real to attract don the sources like you were talking about. getting the public education out so people do the basic things they have to do to make it more secure. there is a lot of hard work involved. it is not impossible. ças we get individuals to run e

computers to be able to stop it, but it is a good question. thank you. >> what is the national intelligence agenciesç policy n third-party involvement thelma ççt(-- involvement? does the government use a lot of private sector organization in acquiring private intelligence, or is it mainly for government entities? >> we have lot of private sector partners#oçw3, both those who e contracts with the intelligence agencies that perform functions. a lot of them aren't what in the companyçó uses private support for -- a lot of them are what

any companyw3ok uses private sut for. certainly, when we buy the equipment, that is through a private company. we build very little of it ourselves. we have proceduresçç so that e havet&e same level of security. d8qçówe have lots of private partners. we are careful though, because some functions that are inherently#g governmental haveo be done by people that work for the government. one that has been talked about recently are interrogators who interrogate people. officials, so we are careful to do thingsñr the government ought

to do with governmentñrw3 officials,çqç but when it maks sense, we do use private partners, so it is a combination. >> thank you for coming to speak. çgiven that on december given that these are intended to be a sign of goodç faith, wy is it that russia hasç been ççpurchasingç battle ships fm france (tiqp -- friend--ççç f? ç

[applause] >> mr. haskins is in charge of hyperbole at brookings. thank you so much. i am pleased to be here. brookings' does such extraordinary work. i want to thank my good friend alice rivlin for being here. i m on opposite sides of the political aisle but not on opposite sides of this issue. t,m mann, thank you for being here and helping people understand the body of congress that sometimes is difficult to understand even fr t the inside, much less thththtside. much less thththtside. thank you all for

of your time this afternoon. never in my decades in congress have seen a public so outraged by deficits and debt. at this moment, this is a moment of historic opportunity. we can waste it on opportunism and slogans and symbolic solutions or we can dedicate ourselves to the painful, un glamorous decisions of fiscal discipline. we can choose to hang together or we can hang separately. i believe and hope and expect that we will hang together. the consequences of failure are dramatic enough to concentrate the mind of even the most dedicated senate. it is enough to say that by the time my grandchildren and great- granddaughter's are in college, our debt will exceed our gdp we will owe more money than the

value of our entire country. it is enough to realize that by then our government will exist to do only two things -- pay for entitlements and pay interest on our debts. there was nothing left over for our nation's defense, our children's education, in a bit of scientific research, or any other critical investments that keep america the home of freedom and opportunity to is he not to look across the atlantic at the extreme crisis in greece to understand that it can happen here. if we do not change our course, it will happen here. when you look it eight centuries of a financial crisis, an economist from the center of intellectual knowledge at the university of maryland -- i am into hyperbole myself -- america

is no exception to the lot of debt. they point out that economic contractions are followed by budget crises that devin prosperity and a stalled recovery. "if there is one common theme to the vast range of crises, is that excess of debt accumulation often poses greater systemic risk that it seemed during a boom. government debt is the unifying problem." m, the common symptom of decline." the economists add that public debt of 90% to gdp a tipping point. senator, -- senator tom coburn made that same point earlier this week. they go on to say that this is

how empire's decline. historian neall ferguson said that. this is our turning point and choice, the point where we join the debt ridden hours that saw their own fiscal ruin or the point in which we as a nation refuse that and write a new chapter. it is a waste of time for us to hand out blame. there's only one constructive reason to look back at what is -- at what got us here and that is to identify the kind of things we need to avoid that is why there is harm and the mindset. this draws exactly the wrong lessons that do much to repeat the cynics -- same mistakes. asserting that the deficit is

the result of policies enacced since president barack obama took office is orwellian. the recovery act has saved 2 million jobs according to the cbo, but it has only contributed fractionally to the deficit. ithe tax cuts enacted under president bush, the wars in afghanistan and iraq, and the economic downturn explain the entire deficit over the next 10 years. the most important lesson we can drop in the years of recklessness is this, when it comes to budgeting, what is politically easy is often fiscally deadly. it is easier to pay for tax cuts with borrowed money than with lower spending. it is easier to hide the true cost of war then delayed those costs before the people.

it is easier to promised special cost-of-living adjustments that explain why an increase is not justified. it is easier to promise 95% of americans that we will not consider raising their taxes and then ask all americans to contribute for the common good. those kinds of easy choices are so often selfish choices that they leave the chore of cleaning up to someone else easy choices may be popular but the popularity is bought on credit. the behavior in washington will only change with the incentive to change. when voters remain -- demand more responsibility. i am hopeful that is just what is happening today. the public has a responsibility to educate itself about the sources of the deficit and the brains of realistic solutions.

they should not demand that government escalate entitlement payments and increase the deficit at the same time. the public must be ready to confront tough choices and leaders in both parties are -- need to be ready to be honest about those tough choices. when deficit solutions meet resistance, which they will, and when they are painful, which they will be, it is our job to explain why they are also explain why they are also correct lutely essential. i believe we have a president and a congress that can and will take that responsibility seriously. president barack obama and congress have taken four major steps to return our country to fiscal health. president barack obama proposed a budget that would cut our deficit in half by 2013. it is perhaps more conceptual than real at this point but it will be released show courage in congress. it also contains a freeze on

non-discretionary spending that will force congress to identify priorities. less discretionary spending will barely put a dent in the deficit, however. that focuses on approximately 14% of the budget that confronts us. alan simpson explained," to say that all we have to do is take care of waste, fraud, and abuse and foreign aid is like a sparrow flying in the middle of a typhoon." colorful and correct. her willingness to curtail the growth of programs we value is powerful evidence that washington will tighten its belt before asking the public to do the same. defense spending is exempted from the freeze because we should insure that our men and women in uniform have the resources necessary to do their job while they're in harm's way. that does not mean that defense

spending should be exempt from cuts where they do not undermine the mission. we have a set for our military. we must apply the same oversight to defense spending as we do to other discussion -- discretionary spending. that is why president barack obama signed a bill to reform weapons acquisition, bringing the process more competition and your conflicts of interest. the gao report recently said that the 96 largest weapons systems that we have are responsible for $296 billion in cost overruns. that kind of defense waste only makes america weaker, not stronger in the long run. third, we continue to work to pass a health insurance reform bill that is debt -- not only deficit neutral but drives down

the insurance cost of the single greatest driver of our deficit. it will be a big step but not the final step for only one. by insuring the fiscal sustainability of our entitlements for decades to come. the health care reform bill that passed the house and senate last year would be fully paid for in the first decade and reduce the deficit by approximately $1 trillion in the second decade. we have brought back to pay as you go law. president clinton used paygo to create a surplus. that policy was adopted in a bipartisan way in 1990 and reaffirmed -- in a bipartisan way in 1997. as all of you know, it was waived and in 2003, it was

reauthorize pretty decision by president bush and republican congress to do away with paygo through his back into the bread for a wet weather comes to cutting taxes or increasing medicare benefits, paygo value because it removes from the table the easy and usually unspoken solution that we would rather our children pay for it. i was brought to sponsor the paygo law. this may not get us out of the whole but it will stop us from digging deeper. i think the attention given to the exemptions secure the importance of real discipline to new policies, the principle of paying what we buy for applies to health insurance reform and restraining spending. the requirement that we include tough choices to expand access

to health insurance has made the task of passing the legislation harder but it will prevent congress from creating a large liability. the medicare prescription drug program that was enacted after statuary paygo left, created in unfunded liability of more than $7 trillion. congress will use the emergency designation to provide for the extension of unemployment benefits and other safety net programs which have been traditionally designated as emergency spending during recessions. it seems to me that is for a program. we must work to -- it seems to me that is appropriate. cutting the deficit cannot struggle job creation. i have told my friends in the press that you cannot stimulate and depressed at the same time.

we need to stimulate but we stimulate now without a thought to tomorrow's discipline that is essential, we will not serve either now or the future will. all of these steps are essential but they are not enough to return our budget to balance. president barack obama is creating a bipartisan fiscal commission. along with speaker pelosi and majority leader read, i pledge that we will get an up or down vote in congress. we want a statutory provision that was unable to be passed assured that. senator harry reid, speaker nancy pelosi, and di, the commission must come to a consensus in congress must act on the proposals by the end of the year. the president has appointed two proven budget balancers. erskine blwles and alan

simpson. i hope congressional republicans will take the work as sincerely and seriously as the chairman takes it. i hope my own colleagues will do so as well. they will come to the table without preconditions, ready to contribute their ideas and not just their criticisms from the sidelines. the commission has -- is bipartisan and won the vote of 16 republicans in the senate. i was disappointed to see that several republican supporters of t!e bill voted against it. as soon as president barack obama endorsed it. social security reform was worked on in the '80s.

the real work of cutting deficits is so easy to demigod that rarely succeeds and will not succeed in my opinion on lusby have support from both sides of the aisle. that is one reason why the fiscal commission must not take any option off the table, from raising revenues to cutting spending. both parties have a duty to appoint members who are willing to compromise and make tough decisions. it is clear to me that the commission takes -- if it takes a one hand approach, it will fail politically and substantively. i want to say a word about the senator ryan's conscientious budget proposal. it relies entirely on cutting spending. he should be commended and i have commended him for putting together a serious and detailed plan to tackle the deficit. it does not raise a single tax

but significantly changes medicare part c we can argue about that but what we ought not to argue about is that somebody has put on the table a very serious and politically risky proposal. that strikes me, in terms of cutting medicare to accomplish the objective without any thought of additional revenues from any source, it strikes me as very much the wrong solution. the plan deserves respect for its honesty and he is one of the few members of his party were either party to tell the public exactly what he's got. as much as his party's leadership tries to distance itself, all right and's program is a logical outcome of the other party's rhetoric of

cutting taxes and deficits at the same time. it seems to me that the only solution that can win this for both parties is a balanced approach, one that cuts some spending and raise some revenue while avoiding extremes in either direction. a balanced approach would sped the effects of change across american society rather than concentrate them simply on seniors. on the side of entitlement spending, americans are living longer lives and raising the retirement age. you can peg the and retirement age to life span. another option is to make social security and medicare benefits progressive while strengthening the safety net of low-income americans. on the side of revenues,

president barack obama was correct in my view in refusing to take any options off the commission's table. no one likes raising revenue. if you are going to buy, you need to pay. president clinton proposed an economic plan aimed at accomplishing fiscal balance. he paved the way for the greatest american prosperity in generations. he had a bipartisan tax compromise in 1986 which showed the importance of a simplified, more efficient tax cut. if need be, i am hopeful that both parties will agree to look at revenues as far as a solution compromise that cuts spending and balances the budget. none of this is easy. it will take bipartisan trust. there is not much of that and supply nowadays pri presidential leadership, i think there is a

lot of that and supplies. we need a public spirit that many assume is beyond america's breach in the year 2010. i do not share that sentiment. america has made a career of proving such cynicism long. as jim fallow said ,"when theodore roosevelt set aside land for national parks, when dwight eisenhower created the pentagon research agency that gave rise to the internet, the american system seemed open to it. saving america from debt would be long next to those accomplishments because in every era, these very fiscal issues are among the greatest tests a nation can face. we are not the first great power to meet the challenges within and will not be the first to

fail. spain, france, the ottoman empire, the british empire in the 1920's, all of them were crippled by borrowing, by interest payments, and by desperate we are not exempt." these are questions of national security and national success. in a democracy, there are questions of national character. they are not technical puzzles for few of us in seminars, think tanks, and back rooms. they are a defining challenge for all of us. you hear commissions on the radio and the media and our willingness to face reality will be a measure of our character. our willingness to reject easy answers from our leaders is a measure of that character. our willingness to put the welfare of our children ahead of

her own, to plant seeds for them for fruit they would never taste is a powerful test of our character. more than a wealth, more than might, those of virtues that have made america flourish. those are the virtues we need to meet that test. i can say with confidence that if we are unable to raise our heads even for a moment above the daily partisan bite, if the collapse comes, we will deserve it. but, if we regain a measure of our lost trust and support one another through shared sacrifices and would turn our country to fiscal health and strength, we will deserve that as well. thank you very much. [applause] >> ok, i am taking questions, i

am told. >> what about the crisis faced by people outside the beltway. unemployment benefits are being cut, medicare is being cut and people continue to use -- lose their homes and jobs the obama answer in legislation discusses not to return to a national bank and its policies but make more cuts. how much longer do you think the population will tolerate these policies from obama and why shouldn't they asked for

immediate impeachment? >> first of all, let me say something about president obama. president barack obama, in my opinion, probably took office and one of the most difficult times in our history since abraham lincoln. franklin roosevelt had a deep economic crisis he confronted but there were two aspects to that crisis. he did not have an international crisis until his second term, until the middle to late 30's. secondly, he had a populace that was educated to the fact that he needed to take substantial action because this economic crisis that confronted them for 3.5 years needed to be dealt with. that was not true when president barack obama took office in january. most of america became convicted of the depth of the crisis only

in september of 2008. that is when we passed the so- called tarp bill. i have called for bipartisanship to make tough decisions for it we hear a lot about the lack of bipartisanship in the congressman the from the minority party. i want you to recall the tarp bill and the secretary of the treasury, the president of united states, and head of the federal reserve came to congress on thursday night in a congress led by democrats and said that we're confronting the crisis and if we do not act and act immediately, the fiscal crisis may well result in a depression. not a recession, but a depression. confronted with and administration, albeit of the other party that said we were in a crisis and having consulted

many economists across the board of the depth of the crisis and convinced that it ministration's representative calculations were correct, the democratic leadership responded. we expanded the bill they sent us four or five times, it was a pretty short bill. $700 billion was put on the table. that bill passed only after the second effort, as you recall. the president's own party did not support it. 1/3 of them did and almost half of them did the second time around. we passed that bill. the president took office and the economy was in very bad shape. there were 726,000 jobs being lost in three months prior to his taking office per month.

the stock market was declining very rapidly. the gdp was in some of its lows to declines. in the last four quarters, we went from 726,000 unemployment 35,000 lost on average in the last three months. that is progress but not success. it is not getting to plus of jobs. the clinton administration group 216,000 jobs per month, on average, in the 1990's. it creates and the best economic times this country has seen in terms of growth and expansion of the economy. those people had investments in

the stock market and savings accounts, shortly after the passage of the american recovery and reinvest and act, it was down but now is up 65%. that is increase of well for people and their savings accounts. cheapie went from -6.4% 2 + 5.4%. that is in 12 months. my view is that we have taken very substantial efforts to stabilize and to start growing the economy. statistically, we have done that but there are 8 million people who lost jobs. unemployment is still at 9.7%. that is way too high and that is

why we continue to address job creation. we did that in september when we passed the jobs for main street act through the house. the senate has passed it smaller jobs bill. we are considering that this week and hope to pass something this week. certainly, it is not serious to say that anyone should consider impeaching this present who were shown a great deal of courage and effectiveness in confronting a dire situation and he has taken a lot of heat for it. i think he will continued to stay focused on growing the economy and growing jobs. we have seen success. we have seen progress. success will be women get back to creating at least 100,000 jobs per month per that will keep us healthy. ha h>> i want to take you as wes

president obama to have the courage to take on this issue. i think you guys in the house are doing a great job of balancing the agenda the american people voted for in 2008. the senate, not so much [laughter] if you guys do nothing, then the bush tax cuts expire. doesn't that give you leverage to play harder game to get things done? if president obama said that he will veto any bill that extends the bush tax cuts unless it

balances the budget over a period time, wouldn't he have a hard leverage that would be needed to build the trust, the bipartisan trust we meet? need? i think there needs to be a health -- a helpful push to bring the republicans to the table. >> first of all, let me address briefly the concern that house members have americans should have with the senate. let me say this in a constructive way. the senate was designed as a more the erotically -- theoretically more thoughtful body. it was supposed to represent not the citizens of america but the states of america and selected by a representative of each

state. it was converted to a direct- elected body in the early part of the last century. culturally, it conceives itself, however, in my view, as a group of one of the people each of whom has the opportunity to stop progress i don't think the founding fathers thought of it that way. last friday, one senator stood in the way of what we had paestum unanimous consent with no boat. democrats and republicans agreed but for all intents and purposes, we believe that 99% of everyone thought we should extend unemployment insurance and co protection. there was a highway bill in their, and some other extensions, i don't think they will work in the bill but one

senator objected. therefore, there are millions of people today at risk of not having the unemployment insurance or cobra. we need to do something about that as a people. the '70s to do something about it as a senate. it is unrelated to party. it happened to be a republican senator named bunning he was indicated that he was worried about his grandchildren and the costs that they would be incurring. people -- senator durbin pointed out that what he was worried about was people who were going to not have sufficient -- this week if we don't pass something to put food on their children's table. with respect to the second part of your question, repeat it. i was so focused on the first issue. we have 280-some-odd bills

pending. bill frenzel here shared that. and oneñr thing republicans and democrats in the house absolutely agree on -- the senate is a consternation at best. but we have 270 bills that we have passed, 70% more -- with more than 50 republicans, that are still pending in the united states senate and not passed. >> just in terms of encouraging our republican friends to come to the table in goodñi faith, i think we do want their ideas and their constructive input. >> absolutely. >> one thought that i have had is that their passion for the bush tax cuts -- >> i get it, ok. the tax cuts because they were not paid for on the the budget rules expireçó in 2010, and because the budget required a longer payout and they were not paid -- and there were not

prepared to pay for them and this looks good on your budget. now the president has indicated that we're not going to raise the taxes on the middle class. clearly in my view we would not want to raise the taxes on the middle class at a time of deep recession, period. families are stretched and we have no intention of doing that, and so we will continue that. in fact, and the statutory paygo that i talked about -- in the statutory paygo that i talked about, one and the exceptions was for the middle class tax cut. we specifically delineated middle class. now we refer to middle class as $200,000 individual, $250,000 family. obviously most americans would think that is a pretty good middle class thehey would like o begin. but those of the figures we generally use. so i think you're going to see that they will be continued. aygo.

is a political rationalization which i think is accurate. we would use them at baseline without having to raise additional taxes. you don't want to raise taxes because of where we are in this recession. what paygo does is focus the mind on having to pay for things like entitlements. it does not apply to discretionary spending. as we move forward, and we keep statutory paygo, in fact, we will not fiscally -- pursue fiscally irresponsible positions.

we don't have a balanced budget amendment. the only constraint upon the country as wealthy as america although we're getting to appoint where -- the political constraint of my asking people to pay for what i am prepared to vote to buy. but take second straight away -- if i take that comes straight away, we started incurring substantial debts as we reduced revenues. we did not reduce commensurate

spending. during the reagan and two bush administrations, we encourage -- incurred $4.80 trillion of operating expenses. in the clinton administration, we had $62.9 billion surplus. it is a different approach, paying for what you buy. we had a republican congress that did not want to spend a democratic president who did not want to cut revenues. the combination got us to a very good balance. fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory neglect this last decade led us to a fiscal debacle in the private sector ended fiscal $1.50 trillion deficit up to 2008 and was exasperated by tarp. are we quit?

>> this will be the last question. >> [laughter] you pick, alice rivlin. >> you spoke early in your talk about the anchor of the american public, about deficits and debt. what do you think it will take for -- to get the american public's understanding, what it will take to bring those deficits -- deficits and debt to down. down? >> by dick ross perot made a wonderful contribution into the country in 1992. it was not until then the people started to focus on deficits.

ross perot spent his own money to go on commercials and say we need to lift up code and find out what is wrong. people got focused on it. we got away from that focus. people were not as angry then as they are today. they are angrier today because they think much of the debt was the courage to give to which people. hopefully, that will animate them to focus on what the real pr hopefully that will get them to concentrate on what the real issue is and where we want to be. let's hope it is the former and not the latter. it will be the former in my opinion if we can in a

bipartisan way come together. and i mentioned bill frenzel's name a lot here. i have great respect for been -- bill frenzel. i served with him. he was açó member of the ways ad means committee and he had a real handle on what we ought to do and had the courage to stand up from time to time and say, look, this is not a democratic or republican problem, it is set -- is an american problem and this is how we have to solve it. we're going to have to have a lot of bill frenzels, a lot of alice rivlins, a lot barack obamas hopefully leaders in the senate and in the house, republicans as well as democrats, stand up and say, none of us believe that these are easy answers or politically popular answers. fl%but they are answers which l get us to a better place for our children and grandchildren, and the stronger country in the

long run and a less dependent america on foreigners loaning us money when we have crisis or when we do not have crisis. thank you all very, very much for all you do. >> i'll like to ask you to stay in your seats for about 30 seconds so mr. hoyer can get to the door. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, the cato

institute previews tomorrow's gun rights case before the supreme court. in an hour and half, an increase on health insurance premiums. after that, we will be air the steny hoyer comments on fiscal responsibility. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning we will talk with senator jeff bingaman of new mexico. how or rosen of the peterson institute for international economics will explain how unemployment insurance works. our guests include roslyn brock, the new chairman of the double let -- naacp. and we will look upon to lead security -- a homeland security budget with mickey mccarterçóñr. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. a couple of live events to tell

you about tomorrow morning. the senate commerce committee continues to examine the toyota recall. witnesses include transportation secretary ray lahood. ñrthat is hear on c-span at 10:0 eastern. also it 10:00 on c-span3, members from google and the state department testified before a senate judiciary committee. >> c-span -- our public affairs content available on television, radio, and on one. you canñi connect to ask for twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for e-mail alerts at c- span.org. >> the supreme court hears a gun rights case tomorrow on how the second amendment may apply to cities and states. next, a preview of the case, mcdonald v. chicago. from the cato institute, this is about 1.5 hours.

>> shall we get started here? i want to welcome you to the cato institute. my name is roslyn brock -- roger pilon, and we are here to talk about a case to be argued before the supreme court tomorrow, mcdonald v. chicago. it is the second act in the second amendment series that began a year ago in the decision inñi which the court for the fit time decided that the right to keep and bear arms, which is discussed in the second amendment, protect your right not simply as a member of the militia but you're right as an individual to keep and bear arms. it was the first time that the court had decided that case soul frontally, and we have the question before us now, does

this right apply againsthe the applyller -- againsthe the statesller -- against the states. heller was argued against the district of columbia. did not until the ratification of the 14th amendment did the bill of rights applied against the states. then it became a question of what rights in the bill of rights were applicable against the states. the unfortunate event that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. in those cases, the court eviscerated the immunity's clause from the 14th amendment, section one. thereafter, the court would try to do under the less substantive due process clause what would be done under the

substantive privileges or the immunity clause. it became a very vexing issue after that. there emerged the theory of substantive due process, which has given many conservatives, including those on the court, some sleepless nights because they see it as an opportunity for judicial mischief to find rights know where included among even our unenumerated rights. the case tomorrow raises the question not simply does the second amendment applied against the states, but on what grounds does the second amendment apply against the states? most people are of the view that the court will find that the amendment does apply, that individual rights goes against states and municipalities. so draconian statutes like that in chicago will be found to be unconstitutional. after all, one of the key

purposes of the 14th amendment ratified at the height of reconstruction in 1868 was to allow the newly freed slaves and white unionists to defend themselves against southern reprisals by protecting their rights to keep and bear arms. so the question -- the second question tomorrow will be whether this will be decided under the due process clause, as all other rights protected by the bill of rights have been found to be protected, or under the privileges immunity clause. will the court for the first time since 1873 revive the privileges or immunity is clause and therefore allow for a while -- a wider array of rights to be protected against the state's? in particular, of various economic liberties. that is one of the issues we will be discussing today.

we have three experts that i will introduce just before they speak. we will begin with thames and for who wrote the brief that the qaeda's institute filed -- he is a debt -- we will begin with the brief that the cato institute filed. having filed briefs in many eminent domain cases, including and a kilo of the new london case -- he is a prolific writer. he has published many scholarly

articles along the way on a wide range of subjects. he is also a contributing editor to "liberty magazine." he has written for many national magazines. in february 2006, he became one of the youngest attorneys ever featured on the cover of " california lawyer magazine." he has been on the lawyer news hour, cnbc street signs, and c- span's book tv. he is a graduate of hillsdale college and of the chapman university school of law. please welcome timothy sandefur ai. [applause] >> thank you very much. i would like to talk more

generally, not particularly about the gun rights, but the more abstract constitutional issues that are involved in the macdonald case. this is one of the cases where, if the supreme court goes the way that i certainly hope it goes, it will be one of the cases where, 10 years from now, we will look at this as a major decision from the u.s. supreme court. understanding the issues in the case requires understanding some issues of constitutional structure and political philosophy. the 14th amendment was intended to be the final word in a debate over the nature of individual rights and the relationship to federalism that had occupied the 19th century. that debate was ultimately the cause of the civil war appeared with the end of that war, the leaders of the victorious union, the republican party, of course, wrote the 14th amendment in order to make their model of sovereignty individual rights

part of the american constitution. as in all things in intellectual history, it is hard to categorize things neatly. i will try to do so by labeling the two sides of this debate the state's right to view and the republican he appeared republican, of course, is somewhat inaccurate because that is what they took in the 1850's when they organize the republican party, but it is as good as any. as i wrote, i brought copies of this if you want one. if we want -- if we run out, send me an e-mail. i would be happy to send you one. the conflict between these two groups did back to the limits of sovereignty. according to locke, a pyramid is limited by our -- government

is limited by our natural rights. the government legitimate powers are limited by those rights. no government made a private -- may deprive us of them. [unintelligible] on the other side was william blackstone writing in the 17 sixties who explicitly rejected that theory. he said its u.s. supreme, irresistible, absolute authority the parliament could do whatever was naturally -- whenever was not naturally impossible. thomas jefferson expressed some

concern over the increasing popularity of blackstone. before the revolution, he wrote to james madison five months before he died, sir edward coke was the elementary book of law students. our lawyers were then all wings. but when the honeyed words of blocks down became the phone book, from that moment, the nursery of their congress began to slide into toryism. american lawyers relied on blackstone to formulate a theory that, upon separating from england, parliament's absolute supreme irresistible authority went to the states. the states enjoyed power not limited by the natural power of individuals. this is a very convenient idea for those defenders of slavery to embrace. opposed to these states' rights terrorists were the liberals who would then formulate the

republican party. john quincy adams was the son of john adams, and after being president, he served in the house of representatives and became the leader of the anti- slavery movement in congress during the 1830's and 1840's touching on the political and legal implications of the declaration of independence and its natural rights philosophy, he believed that it was not just political rhetoric, but a binding legal document, part of the organic law of the united states. it did not separate america from britain, but set limits on the powers of the state's on government. the notion that sovereign must be unnecessarily uncontrollable is a hallucination. sovereignty thus defined is in direct contradiction to the

declaration of independence and incompatible with the nature of our institutions. the states' rights doctrine that he was arguing against threatened to render the declaration of independence a philosophical bdream. john quincy adams was enormously influential. his closest protege was charles sumner. adams served in congress with abraham lincoln. the dispute between the states' rights followers of blackstone and the republican followers of lock was not the nature and limits of sovereignty, but about the location of sovereignty. before 1787, we were governed

by the rows of confederation, like a treat of sovereignty among states. the most important accomplishment of the 1787 constitution was to replace that model. under the articles, congress was dulled by a state legislature. under the constitution, congress and [unintelligible] beginning in the 19th century, pro-slavery politicians devised a constitutional theory to resist federal power and rising anti slavery opinion, which denied that the federal government was saarinen held that the states alone worked sovereign -- that the federal government was sovereign and held that the states along were sovereign.

state governments with no practical limits on what they could do to their people. this was the argument of the states rights party led by people like john and a man named jeremiah black, the chief justice of the state of pennsylvania. he was an interesting figure. in 1853, he issued a decision that's really articulated these rights. he said that the transcendent part predictions and a pair of the parliament were -- he said that the transcendent power of the parliament were given to the states. although he conceded that the states have delegated some of their power, he concluded that state legislatures contained a vast field of power, full and

and come close -- full and uncontrolled. chief justice black left his seat as the chief justice of the pennsylvania supreme court when he was appointed united states attorney general by buchanan. he continued to make these arguments. sovereignty is in its nature irresistible and absolute. no government ought to violate justice. the idea that national citizenship was paramount to state citizenship and that states could not trample on natural or common law rights was inserted into the creed of the abolitionist because they suppose it would give some plausibility to their violent intervention into the affairs of the states. his belief in supreme irresistible state sovereignty

was so strong that, after the war, he committed himself to defeating reconstruction. just as he and other states route rights theorists held that states were sovereign, others held that the federal government was sovereign. the united colonies had declared independence, not 13 separate sovereignties. and the constitution was issued in the name of the people of the united states. american citizenship was then a different and superior to state citizenship. the reason that is so important is that it meant that all americans enjoy certain rights because they were americans, not because they were georgians or new yorkers or pennsylvanians

pin many republicans believe the death -- pennsylvanians. many republicans believe that the rights applied to the states as well as the to do government. on one hand, the states rights party agreed with blackstone that sovereignty was absolute and unlimited and belong to the state and not the nation. then the constitution was a treaty among the states to limit individual rights at will. on the other hand, there were people like john quincy adams whose theory of paramount national citizenship held that sovereignty was limited by our natural rights and that the nation was sovereign, so that all americans enjoyed their rights as americans, not as citizens of the state. after the civil war, republicans found an opportunity to adapt

their ideas into the constitution. they hoped to remove any ambiguity by amending the constitution. if you read the 14th amendment, that is how it works. that is the order its start seeing. all those born in the united states are subject to the united states and the state wherein they reside. it was the first time that the constitution identified citizenship. it was by undermining this achievement and eliminating the idea paramount national citizenship that the state made its most fundamental error appeared the most important legal error was failing to give

effect to paramount federal citizenship. before this amendment, the states had supreme authority over all of these matters. after the civil war had closed, the same authority was asserted. the 14th amendment was not primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race. it was intended to justify legislation extending the protection of the national government over the common-law rights of all citizens of the united states. it recognized a national citizenship and declared that there immunities' that embrace all fundamental rights should not be abridged by any state. a parallel development in state law -- in 1857, the california

supreme court issued a decision called billings vs. hall, striking down al that took property away from -- striking down a law that took property away from absentee landlords. others contend that there are boundaries to the exercise of the supreme power of the state. in 1870, of the same court, the california supreme court, reversed it completely by 1870, californians were engaged in a war against chinese immigrants. one way was to pass a law that no chinese person could testify against a white person in court. if a violent crime was to be committed against a chinese

person, the witnesses would be other chinese persons who could now not testify against the defendants. the great mass of governmental powers are reserved to the state, the court said. the absolute right of uncontrolled local legislation upon all subjects most intimately connected with individual rights was reserved. the federal government was greeted by the compact of sovereign states and their continued existence in the and control the exercise of their cars is an essential element of our system. if the 14th minute had been intended to restrict state powers, we should regard it as we should bail law apparently legalizing murder or robbery. this same retreat from the doctrine of paramount national citizenship can be recognized in the slaughterhouse cases when justice miller's cases said that italy protect those rights that 0 their existence to national citizenship.

but then he goes on to say that those rights of national citizenship are a very narrowly limited set of such privileges as the right to travel to washington, d.c., the right to demand federal protection on the high seas -- a guess what? the state of arkansas? they do not have a navy. miller did not discuss the legislative history of the amendment or anything about why it was drafted. the doctrine of paramount citizenship or anything. the great tragedy after the civil war, officials attendinabd reconstruction. the assertive -- the assertion of states rights principles in the 19th century eliminated federal protection for many fundamental human rights,

segregation, eugenics, censorship were all allowed. during the civil rights movement, from the 1950's to the 1970's, there was a revival for protection of some of these rights. other constitutional provisions, like due process or protection clauses, as well. state and local governments today are still permitted to violate and ignore fundamental human rights. this includes not only the right to defend oneself against violence by owning and possessing firearms, but to earn a living as one chooses. today, of entrepreneurs and business owners are still basically an unprotected against the abuses at the hands of state

and local governments. occupational licensing laws and other restrictions deprive people of the right to earn a living and making economic choices about employment, running their own businesses, and the burdens of these restrictions fall the heaviest on those who have no political power to defend themselves, precisely those people who need it -- the constitution to defend them. fish in the case of adam smith, an oregon college student who started a moving business, ore. required him to get a license for spirit to get a license, you had to ask permission of all of the existing moving companies. you laugh at this, but this is the way every major metropolitan city regulates taxicabs. it is not surprising that the state of oregon had not issued licenses in many years. the general public was not even

allowed to issue an opinion on the issue. this law violated his right to earn an honest living, not to protect the public, but to protect the settlers companies against competition. -- but to protect the established companies against competition. the arrival of her free speech, religion, the press, -- the right of free speech, religion, the press -- if the supreme court chooses to turn over the slaughterhouse clauses, it would be a welcome day for all americans. thank you. [applause]

>> we are now like to talk with doug kendall. he previously founded and directed the community rights council, constitutional accountability is centers predecessor organization. he represents clients form \ state and appellate courts. he is the co-author of three books and of the lead author of numerous reports and studies. he lunged and helped direct the judging the and permit the project -- he launched an helped direct the judging the environment project. he has appeared on television programs and on radio

broadcasts. his academic writings have appeared in scholarly journals. his commentary runs in "the new republic." he is a blogger of "the huffington post." he received his degrees at the university of virginia. please welcome doug kendall. [applause] >> thank you, roger. thank you for having me today. the one thing he did not mention is that we also filed a brief in the macdonald case. it was not on behalf of the constitutional center, but on a collection of some of the most preeminent legal scholars in the country and across a broad spectrum of ideology, ranging

from jack altmabalkman and eight preeminent scholars. it builds upon a much broader collection of scholarship. that includes some of the recognized in giants of constitutional law for the last 30 years. nowhere is the disconnect between the constitution's text and history and the modern

supreme court doctrine more pronounced than in its interpretation of the protections and immunities clause. there is broad consensus that indicates that the privileges and immunities clause was supposed to be the centerpiece of the 14th amendment. the way in which fundamental substantive rights, liberty writ interests are protected against infringement by the government. correspondingly, there is almost universal agreement that the supreme court badly erred in the 1873 slaughterhouse case. virtually no serious modern scholar, left, right, or center,

believes that slaughterhouse is a plausible reading of the 14th amendment. that is really the consensus that is embodied in the brief filed in this case. with the privileges or immunities clause read out of the constitution, the supreme court turned to the due process clause as a vehicle for applying substantive protections against the state and for recognizing and protecting unenumerated rights and liberties, starting with the case of myers vs. nebraska about the right to control the education of children. the result is a doctrine known as substantive due process.

it is less than a perfect constitutional actor for the role. this has led to the constitutional equivalent of a food fight for the last 30 years among progressives and conservatives. conservatives have attacked substantive due process as exhibit a in their case that progresses and liberal justices on the court denied respect constitutional history. [unintelligible] the whole debate should make

anyone who cares about constitution text and history want to scream because of the entire discussion is the void of any real consideration of the text and history that really matters. that is the text and history of the privileges or immunities clause. i want to rehearse and go for a little bit, point by point, the points that we make in our brief that informs this discussion in little bit. the first point is that the privileges or immunities clause was crafted against a backdrop of rights suppression in the south. it was written and intended to protect against state infringement. some of this went through before. the remarkable thing about the 14th amendment that has been lost in modern debate is that we

have a history of its that is out there looking to be discovered and looking to be looked to which is being forgotten right now. the drafters of the 14th amendment created a joint commission -- a joint conference which was made up of members of the senate and the house. they did hearings for about six months in 1866, which led to the drafting of the 14th amendment. at those hearings, they went throughout the south to determine what the needs work, why we needed a second amendment to the constitution. the produced a book that reported to the joint committee every construction. they had 165,000 copies of this report. it was 1000 pages long. it had 165,000 copies at a time

when america was tiny compared to the day. it was distributed around the country. you see what they cared about. they cared about the suppression of rights by the southern states of both the freed slaves and unionists in the south. the talk about things like freedom of speech, about some economic freedoms, about the right to bear arms, as well as these rights of heart and home. the treatment of the slave families in the south and continuing into the reconstruction was where husbands were taken away from wives and children away from parents. the history of the abuse of slaves in the reconstruction. is what inform the privileges -- in the reconstruction period is

what informed the privileges or immunities clause. it included fundamental rights. james madison, when he introduced the bill of rights to congress, called the bill of rights the choicest privileges of the people. what that indicates and what @ @ @ @ they were not foreign to the framers of the original constitution and the 14th amendment. they had a meaning that was included, it was enumerated in the constitution. and the most famous expression was a nephew of george washington wrote it. he defined the privilegesñi and immunities clause of theiv of

the original constitution. it was in a way that echoed the declaration of independence, the inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that it rested on that. s and the pursuit of happiness. that is the public meaning of the term privileges and immunity's. there were 27 of the 37 states that had constitutional provisions that were basically the declaration of independence or echoed closely [unintelligible] there was a very defined meaning there was a very defined meaning of privileges or ies as the protection of substantive fundamental rights. the congressional debate about the 14th amendment very clearly indicates that the privileges or

immunities clause were supposed to incorporate the protections of the bill of rights against the state's and protect other enumerated or unenumerated fundamental rights. the clear statement of that is one by jake -- by jacob howard, a senator from michigan. he was designated by the joint committee to present the 14th amendment to the senate. he does so in a speech that ways out clearly that privileges and immunities are a broader set of substantive liberties. that is echoed by a number of critical framers and founders of the 14th amendment and is not really disputed even by the

opponents of the amendment. the fourth point is a little technical. the awarding -- the wording is broader in important ways. most important is that the article for clause is a quality permission or a nondiscrimination provisions. it prevents discrimination whereas the 14th amendment is really a guarantee of substantive rights. the founders of the 14th amendment intended that the right to bear arms would be a privilege or committee of the

united states citizenship. when we debated keller, there was a back and forth about what it was all about. we talked about this history from 1787 or 1789. i think that was a cloudy history in some ways. the amendment is a little bit tricky with its preamble and the court divided very closely on that. when you look at the 14th amendment, you see that the framers almost all cared about the rights to bear arms for the reason that all the rebels in the south had guns. the people who did not have guns

were the unionists who work in the south and the freed men. any property or possessions or families of the former slaves, the property and everything that they were able to get after the war were under assault. one of the things that the founders of the 14th amendment, one of the reasons they wanted to adopt the 14th amendment was to make sure that the freed men had the ability to protect themselves and their families from the first reformer rebels [unintelligible] the final point is simply that precedent does not prevent -- does not prevent the court from recognizing that the clause pretext

infringement. in three cases, in the late 19th century, the court held that the second amendment does not apply against state action. the court will have to revisit portions of these cases. the slaughterhouse case has already been effectively gutted by a subsequent ruling. the court in slaughterhouse has this very idea that the civil war and the 14th amendment really did not change anything in the relationship between the states and the federal government. the supreme court has reversed that all already without actually reversing the slaughterhouse cases. so the court has already gutted slaughterhouse in many important ways.

it is going to have to go back and revisit its barrier to the cases. it is not too late in the day. you're going to do that anyway. you should go back and write what we think is what -- is one of the most egregious wrongs in supreme court history. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we are going to hear from our own kibillion ilia shapiro.

from 2004 to 2007, you wrote a column for "tcs daily." he is the co-author of an oracle with to josh blackmun on the privileges or immunities clause. it is a very long scholarly article. he regularly provides commentary on legal and political issues for various tv and radio outlets. he is an adjunct professor at george washington university law school.

he is a washington fellow at the national review institute. he lectures regularly on the -- on behalf of the federalist society. before entering private practice, he clerked for a judge e. grady jolly. he is a graduate of princeton university where they master of science from the london school of economics. he and his jtf the university of chicago law school. -- he earned his j.d. at the university of chicago law school. [applause] >> thank you. those of you who are blogging or writing about this event, make sure you attribute all the quotes correctly.

doug's briefing and their brief in the seventh circuit were recently selected by the green bag as one of their selections for top legal writing this year. i never thought that we would be talking about the privileges or immunities clause or the 14th amendment or any of these big issues in the context of guns. you might have seen some references in the media about the differences that have come out between the gun nuts and the constitution nuts. i am on the side of the

constitution does. -- constitution nuts. this has been a long-term project force callers across the ideological spectrum -- for scholars across the ideological spectrum. we have agreed not to talk about the specifics of the diversion, although feel free to us in the q&a. we never thought that the way that we would get to the supreme court with this reinvigoration of the gem of the constitution was through the right to keep and bear arms. 10 years ago, if you would have asked roger pilon, one of the

key figures in the libertarian legal movement and scholarship that advances public policy here and across the country, how would this part of the agenda be advanced? the second amendment or gun rights would not be forefront in his mind, i would wager. yet, this is how the wheel of his returns. to get to the actual case and how i think the argument will go tomorrow and some of the more specific issues, you have to go back to 6101 or constitution 101 parent -- go back to civics 101 or constitution 101. before you even get to the bill of rights, the first six

articles, the original constitution provides the governmental structure. there was a big argument between the federalist and the anti- federal it's over whether we need a bill of rights anyway -- anti-federalists over whether we need a bill of rights anyway. if we start writing down what these rights are, we will spare six others. that is why we had a compromise. in the ninth amendment, it says that these enumerated rights cannot disparage unenumerated rights. that is the structural version of the constitution. that was all well and good.

the old lead to the federal government. until these several war, none of these rights could be applied as against state governments. they could be free to send the state militias and force you to house them or what not. but then we have the civil war which affected a fundamental rethinking or reconstruction of the relationship between the federal and state governments and between the federal and state governments respectively and the individual. the 14th amendment was a huge part of that. what did it do? did it just say, okay, those rights that we enumerated, the first eight and the other ones covered in the ninth amendment, those sean bell applied to the states? that could have been the text of the 14th amendme