challenges that would ensue? but the think of the difficulty as far as the legal fight this would produce if the reclassification to place. >> the commission never does anything that does not result in a legal challenge. absolutely, there'll be a lawsuit. the reason this case was so helpful, it was a test case. the tests that but fcc was proposing to build as legal foundation failed. if they move this forward under the title to regime, they will be challenged. that will make a decision based on the facts and well reasoned technical analyses. it will be very hard for an appellate court to our return that. that is where agencies are in their strongest position when the commission is making an expert determination. it is hard to second-guess those decisions. they have a much better chance

in that situation of surviving a legal challenge. once that happens, we are moving forward with some certainty on how policy makers can treat the internet access providers. . . we have seen examples like the comcast situation where they engage in activities where it has been very opposite of the things they publicly stated they were for. they have blocked lots of

content. unless there is some sort of complete process and recourse, it is very hard to shame the companies into changing their behavior. there has to be a heavier stick than that. >> this is a great victory for content companies like google. they see no recourse for directions, so to speak. what argument which you might as far as a person representing these type of companies about the kind of band width, which was initially used this as the forefront of the process. >> that is where i think everyone benefits by clear rules. the only way we get clear rules is having a solid legal foundation. once that happens, network operators will be able -- we will support them on this, they will engage in network activities to deal with issues

about increasing bandwidth and how to deal with the traffic that may be overwhelming the network. those are issues that the isp's have a great deal of flexibility to engage in, but right now they're not sure of the rules in that space. having clear rules helps everybody know what to expect and where the lines will be drawn with permissible activity and things that cross the line. in the comcast situation, comcast initially argued they were blocking lawful content because of content issues, the than the fact that were developed in the investigation showed that comcast was blocking the application even when there was no congestion on the network. so there has to be some sort of oversight back and verify what the network operators are saying to ensure that the activities they are engaging in, especially blocking all full content, --

lawful content, is done with sound public policy. >> he is the executive director of the open internet coalition. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks for joining us this week. if you would like to read the three-judge panel decision on that neutrality and management, go to c-span.org/communicators, or you can also watch all of our previous programs. >> friday, john paul stevens announced he is retiring from the court at the end of the term. c-span recently interviewed justice stevens. he gave a guided tour on his chambers, talked about life in the court, and the role of the supreme court justice. president ford nominated justice stevens in 1975. he is 89 years old and has served on the court 34 years.

this is 35 minutes. >> left on the supreme court that served with warren burger. >> that is correct. i think that was taken today that justice o'connor was sworn in, if i'm not mistaken, in the conference room. >> what is the difference between the court then and the court now? >> eight different justices. the eight that are in that picture have all been succeeded by the present colleagues. >> is there a difference in the way the court operates today? is that determined by the chief justice? >> well, it is pretty much determined by how it has been operated over the years. there is much more continuity in the way we do our work than there is change. there is a change when the new chief justice is writing his

comments. each has their own method of handling and presiding, just as the present chief justice is doing an excellent job. there are some virtues the others did not have, but i think it's pretty much follows the tradition that has been followed for many years. >> 80 cases per year, back in those they were there more, and if so why? from your perspective, how many cases it should you handled per year? >> i think the number we handle now is probably about right. maybe we should have about 100, but there were well over 150 when i started. that was a very, heavy work load. the number of reasons for the change, one is we no longer have mandatory jurisdiction applied back when chief justice thurgood was here.

we have more control over the docket than we did then. i think we do a better job, for the most part, in taking cases. although i think we should take a few more. >> what is your relationship with the people in this room? have you counted how many clark's you have? >> somebody knows, but i don't. they play a very important role in really two, three different ways. one, the review all the serb positions that come in. -- the review all of cert positions that comment. they also worked on opinions that we produce. i usually write the first draft, i always read the first draft, and they convert it from the draft to an opinion that is much better than what started out. >> tellez what this room is used

for. >> this is the room where my secretary and assistant secretary are both in this office. it is a room for visitors to sit and see what the place looks like. bedell kind of visitors have you gotten over the years and how easy is it to see you? >> it is a lot easier -- i probably should not say this, it is not that difficult, but usually we are busy. that schedule is covered pretty much by the available time. it is a full-time job. there is an awful lot of time used preparing, reading briefs, discussing cases, and the major work is in writing opinions. >> did you ever total of how many hours per week you have to read? >> i don't know, but it is a lot more than 40, i will tell you that. >> what is your pattern on a given day? >> i am an early morning person.

i do quite a bit of work early in the morning, usually to be well prepared. i have flexibility on days in which we're not sitting. i can work at home with the computers, what they do for us, i could work at home on opinions, read at home, and i sometimes do, sometimes i come down. is it totally optional schedule. >> where is this office located in the court itself? >> this is in the northwest corner of the building. >> have you always been in this space? >> no, i have been in four different spaces. i started down the hall in the chambers that are referred to as the retired chief justice's chamber. i was there three, four years. then i moved to the chambers that justice o'connor now occupies. then after that, i moved into

the chamber is that justice scalea occupies now, which had previously been occupied by justice stuart. i took over when he retired. before that time, justice black was in those chambers. there have only been three justices in this chamber support it -- in those chambers. >> let me ask you about this portrait on the wall. who is that gentleman? >> that is a great justice of the court for who might clerked, rutledge, 1947. he is one of my heroes. >> who was he? >> he was a justice of the court here, and before that he was a judge on the court of appeals, district of columbia circuit. before that, he was the dean of iowa law school. before that he was the dean of st. louis law school, and he taught at other law schools during his career as well. >> what year did you clerk for him?

>> 1947, 1948. >> what did you learn from that experience that you still hold on to? >> i learned an awful lot, surprisingly. i learned to take the time to write out your own draft of opinions, make sure you understand the case before you turn it over to someone else to work on. i learned that every case is important, not just if there is just a lot of money involved or important public issues. every case is important to people who are involved in them. >> back to the first draft, is that unique to you? >> no, i cannot speak for my colleagues. i am sure some do some for stress, not sure they all do. one of the reasons i did that, justice rutledge used to write them on a yellow pad. i type them on computers, but he would write out on his own, longhand, the full first draft,

and then the secretary would type it up, and usually that was it. there would sometimes be footnotes or suggestions, but he did the whole thing himself. and what has been your philosophy about the life of an opinion that you would write, and also the extent that you write on a concurring opinion? >> well, the length depends on the case. i try to keep them as short as i can, but sometimes it takes more stages than people think you should. i use footnotes regularly because i think footnotes are optional reading, but they are something that i think should be in an opinion. they do not always have to read them to understand the argument and the opinion. i am one of those old-timers who think footnotes first serve a useful function. some of my colleagues don't think so and scholars sometimes

feel that way. >> why? >> they think if it is important of to be written in the opinion, it ought to be included in the text. if it should not be in the text, leave it out. >> how does an opinion change in length from the first draft that you write to the time that it is finished? >> sometimes it does not change that much at all. sometimes it becomes shorter, sometimes longer. i think probably more often it becomes longer, but i am a fan of shorter opinions, but you cannot always do it. >> over on the wall is the number 22 baseball jersey. what is that from? >> that was a gift from my law clerk a few years ago, because they know i am a cub fan, and it encourages my continued it is. -- interest in the cubs. >> when you do -- when did you

throw out the first ball? >> that was a few years ago. i think three years ago. >> what was that like? >> that was the highlight of my career. i can tell you that i was a hero that day. much more important in my job. >> and you made it from the mound to the catcher? >> absolutely, i throw it high and wide. i had to practice, though. >> what are these pictures? >> the first one is a picture of gerald ford's funeral that his family gave me. the casket was passing by. then there are a couple of letters that he wrote to me that i am very proud of. this is a picture here that was taken at the swearing-in of the vice-president in january. then i have a picture of my colleagues part of the seventh

circuit. the one at the top is the vincent court, for which i clerked. >> so you clerked for rutledge during the vincent court, 1947. if you come down on the pictures, this court right here? >> i served on that court from 1970-1975. this was the court i joined, the one at the bottom. >> where is the seventh circuit located? >> it is in wisconsin, illinois, indiana. and all of southern chicago. >> what was -- what was your experience sitting on the seventh circuit? >> i learned a great deal, an awful lot about federal law clerks. i served with some awfully good judges and i learned a lot from them. tom fairchild, a chief judge for years, i learned a lot from him,

and others of my colleagues. >> what is a difference between a circuit court of appeals and the supreme court? >> on the circuit court of appeals, you are more bound by precedent than you are. if there is a decision or even a victim, then the court of appeals is really required to follow it. where as in this court, there are many more open questions that have not been finally resolved and you have more of a duty to decide things for the first time that had not then faced before -- that had not been faced before. >> you have been an auditor for a lot of different offices. the atmosphere that you are working in matter to you much? >> actually, it doesn't. i enjoy the office and i have a wonderful view of the capital that i can see from my desk, but the most import part of the office is the computer which is

sitting right next to me. were you are, you spend a lot of time reading and all the computer. >> behind your desk are a number of pictures. can you give us an overview? >> most of them are family, justice rutledge, and a picture of my two former local law partners. >> who is this? >> that is my wife. she passed away a few years ago. these are my parents. three daughters and my wife in that picture. >> us some background on your parents? >> well, it is a long story. they both lived a long time, but they were probably the most notable part of me. my dad was responsible for building was is now the congress building in chicago, stevens

hotel. he was in the hotel business. he was also a lawyer. he studied at northwestern back in the days of whitmore, when the past. >> you went to northwestern? >> yes. >> not that unusual to have somebody on the court from northwestern? >> well, justice filbert was from northwestern. i went to northwestern in my undergraduate work, the university of chicago. >> is there any difference from going to a midwestern school and we hear from other justices from stanford, yale, harvard? >> i think areas. every school has its virtues and strengths. northwestern really had a fine law school, still has a fine law school. there are good law schools all over the country. i learned that in hiring law clerks. i have hired law clerks from many different schools to have

done a magnificent job, even though they were not from ivy league's. >> i read that you were the top student in history of northwestern law school? >> well, i have been told that was true. i don't know about the record since then, but i was told that was the case. >> in all your experience, northwestern law school, your job as the clark care, seventh circuit, father of an attorney, where along the way did you get involved in law? >> it was a combination of many things that combined to give you your views of what the laws. a lot of it is developed through reading, your experiences. my experiences during world war ii have shaped my opinion. >> you were in the navy?

>> yes, and my experience as a practicing lawyer have impacted the work i have done, my experience on the seventh circuit have affected me. there are an awful lot of things that have combined to affect my view of the law. >> when you are sitting on the bench looking at the court during an oral argument, what are you thinking? what do you see that we don't see? >> one thing i often remember is the first time i argued before the court, i was really surprised at how close i was to the justices. i think to myself sometimes, he is thinking the same thing, he did not expect to be quite as close to us, quite as intimate and experience as it really is. you are right in conversation with those people on the bench. it is a very interesting experience. >> you have been here long enough or the bench itself was straight? >> no, warren burger made that

change a year or two before got here. it has always been, since i have been a justice, as always been with the ankle on the two sides. when i was a law clerk, it was a street bench. >> where is your favorite spot in the whole court? what room deal like the best? -- what room to you like the best? >> i have not really thought that through. i suppose i enjoy oral arguments and i like the court room. i really do. i enjoy my office. it one of the most interesting places in the court is the spiral staircase is, well worth seeing if you can. >> you have spent much time studying the history of this please? >> i have picked up a good deal of history, but i have not made an independent study of it. the way some people have made of the white house, for example. there is interesting work that is been done on the lighthouse. >> what are those books behind

you? >> those are u.s. reports from, i forget, maybe 40 years. then it over there i have reports from the beginning. >> what are u.s. reports? but you walk around the desk and i will meet you on the other side. >> they are the reports of the decisions by the court. which of course include all the majority opinions and all of the dissenting and separate opinions. >> we have read it for years that you have figured out a way to spend part of your time here and part of your time in florida. what has been your philosophy? when did you start spending a couple weeks a month in florida and doing work there? >> i have been doing that for at least 25 years, perhaps more. part of that is the product of the computer. continuing communication with the office here, even though you are working there. it is the kind of job that you

don't have to be in office to perform. you could read briefs and do other research without being in the office, and you could write opinions about being in the office -- without being in office. i do just as much work in florida as i do here, except i do not hear any oral arguments there. sometimes i read briefs sitting on the beach. i can remember getting a kick out of the fact i had the briefs on the bench one day and i shook the sand out of the briefs. it made my neighbor's a little jealous. i prepare. >> as you know, when you are around washington, a supreme court justice is somebody everybody knows. i am sure you have found yourself in the supermarket saying, oh, there is justice stevens. >> never. >> never? >> the only time i remember being recognized is when i am

doing shopping or something was running a video -- i don't know what the name of the output was, but the guy who own the store had been admitted to the bar a couple weeks earlier and he recognized me. he was apparently both a lawyer and businessman. but i am almost never recognized, which is nice. i just do the shopping and so forth, nobody knows who it is. >> let's go back to the cert rule. is the correct way to pronounced sur shep? >> surgery? >> what does it mean? >> it is a writ of the party lost in the lower courts. they find a petition for writ of certiorari, which is for oral arguments.

that is where we get i don't know how many different cert petitions, but the cases that we grant come out of that number that are filed. >> how many justices participate in the cert pool and what is it? >> in has varied over the years. when i joined the court, there were six justices. i did not join it because having been a law clerk years earlier, i had some familiarity with the process and i thought i could handle cases more efficiently myself without participating in these memos with these group of justices. after i joined, every justice who has joined the court has joined cert since then. there have been eight, with this one exception last year justice alito decided.

there are several justices who share their law clerks and memos in preparation for the cert. >> why did you decide not to join it? >> i thought i could handle the cases more efficiently independently and as part of the cert board, because the memos to prepare our very throw in a carefully written but there were a lot of. i thought was necessary -- but they were a lot longer than i thought was necessary in order to give an opinion. >> what does that do to your personal workload or your clark's? that you have to ask them. i think it makes it less, but they go through every cert petition and divide them up. they did not have to write memorandums. they read more petitions, but they write fewer memorandums. econo balances out. >> -- a kind of balance is out. >> once it is accepted, where

does that happen? >> as the week, except when we recess and miss a week, we have a conference on friday and we review all the cert petitions that have come in since the last conference and we vote on whether to grant or deny them. before the justices vote to grant cert petitions, they are granted. >> physically, where do you do that? >> we do that and conference room of the court. all of the justices are present at the conference, but no one else is present. the deliberations are entirely off the record. >> what is the conference room right -- like? >> it is a nice big room with a big table and nine chairs around the table. when we get through, sometimes we have coffee set and. . >> sometimes we have coffee sent in. >> how formal is it? >> well, it is in formal in the

sense that it is congenial and there is a certain amount of conversation, but most of it is business. we are fairly rigid in our rules, talking in order of seniority and vote on them. sometimes after we have discussed the case, or sort petition, we will talk further, but usually it is finished after one go around. >> you are senior? >> well, i am senior in age and years of service, but the chief justice is first. >> when you came on this court, did you ever think you would be here 34 years? >> no. i had a locklear named stuart becker -- i had a law clerk named stuart becker, and asked him to prepare a memorandum for me on the ages of retirement of all my predecessors and

suggested the age i should plan on retiring. i thought then, and now, if you are not the best judge when you are retired, it would be helpful to have that kind of guidance. well, i did not follow his recommendation. >> what did he suggest? >> i cannot remember exactly what it was, but the years have long gone by. >> you are very close to being the longest serving justice in the history were the oldest justice in history. has any of that entered your thinking now? >> no, i am not out to break any records, i assure you that. i just enjoy the war, and each -- i just enjoy the work, and each year i have thought about it and continue to enjoy it and continue to make a contribution. >> what do you do at age 89 to stay as healthy as you are? >> well, i play a lot of tennis. i don't play as much golf as i used to because my foursome is not the same as what it used to

be. when i am in florida, i go swimming every day, play tennis probably three times the week. >> is that painting over the mantle of any significance? >> that is queen victoria, dawn in the 1980's. apparently, that is a portrait that is in a number of the schools. over in england. >> why don't you sit over here so we get you more comfortable. right out that window is the capital. >> that is right. >> put the court for a moment in perspective for the public, and a town like this, where we have the president and capital in this building across the street. what is its role. -- what is its role? >> it is an independent branch of the government. and has to decide cases and controversies, and it has to do

it with the best ability that it can. >> does it do with the way you want to do it? >> sometimes, sometimes not. it has been true while i have been here and throughout the history of the court that there are cases that are very difficult, difference of judgment by different members of the court. so when you are not in the majority, you wish they had decided it the other way, or that it may have been better off if we decided the of the way, but if you don't have the votes -- >> in your 34 years, are other cases that matter more to you than others? >> i am sure there are, but if you ask me which one is the most significant, i would have to say the ones i am working on currently are always the most significant, and that changes from time to time. >> which one of the years had the most reaction, the biggest sensation in the country? you sit here, you write

opinions and a top out and they are over the news. do you pay attention to that? >> you read the paper, of course. i read the papers, but i work with the clerks. you have to let others decide on which are the most significant. >> do you think your papers will eventually be released for the public when you retire? >> i think it will be over at the library of congress. and how long after? i know in the case of justice marshall, they were released early. >> i don't remember the exact time i have arranged for. >> you go back to rutledge, who is the justice that you served as clerk, were there other justices in history that made a difference to you? >> yes, indeed. >> why? >> because of the quality of their work. they have done some really truly great things who have sat on the

court. >> some that you could mention? >> brandeis. those are ones that we often mentioned. justice holmes was an exceptional justice. my good friend potter stewart and byron white were good justices. and number of great men have served the court. >> in your opinion, what makes a justice great? >> the quality of his work is the main thing, i think. you judge judges i guess by the work product they produce when they are on the court. >> what is quality, in your opinion? what makes quality, good writing? >> well, i don't know. i don't think i can give a lesson in english grammar and all that, but they have to be written clearly and accurately

and honestly. >> going back to what we were talking about earlier, the court and things you disagree with, what is your options if you are sitting in conference and they vote not your way? what role does your dissenting opinion play, you think, in that law? >> sometimes it becomes persuasive, later on. sometimes it does not. but i don't write dissents trying to change that law. i think it is just part of the job of the justice to explain his or her vote in the case. i think the process is an open process, in the sense this is one institution that explains in a public way what it decides and what it does. i think there is difference in the court on how case should be decided, it is inappropriate for those who disagree to explain why they felt the aside -- the

other side did what they did. >> you have been active in oral arguments, and we run an argument per week on our radio station. what is your philosophy of participation during the oral arguments? >> my philosophy is to ask questions, and i think the answer might give me help deciding the case. i don't view the participation of a justice as an opportunity for the justice to advocate one point of view. i think, rather, the questioning should be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides are in order to enable the justice to reach a decision on his or her own views. >> how often do you change your mind on a case after or arguments? >> sometimes. i cannot tell you the number, but it has happened. it has happened when i have been

writing opinions. that is one reason i think it is important for the justice to do the first draft, because when you try to write something out, is sometimes learn things about the case that you did not fully appreciate or understand before. there has been more than one case in which i have changed my views when i was writing the opinion. >> so a young man or woman comes in your office, 17 years old, and they say to you, i want to be like you, i want to be just a sunday. what advice you give them along the way as to what route to take, and is it possible they could decide at a young age to be a supreme court justice? >> i don't know, i certainly did not decide at the age of 17, and i cannot remember talking to anyone at age 17 you ask me for that advice. >> moving ahead to college? >> the basics of course is to

study hard and do the best job that you can understand what you can learn about. >> do you think in the future this is a court that has every member, the history of serving on a circuit court of appeals, they are all circuit court of veterans. is that something that will be expected, you think, from now on? >> that is something that future presidents will have to decide. but i think is healthy for the court to have members of different backgrounds. i saw a television program recently when somebody said it should always be someone who had served in the armed forces on the court. i think there should always be someone that has had practical experience in litigation. i think experience in other branches of the government such as legislatures would be very, very helpful. i think, for example, justice o'connor had experience as a

legislator, and i think she has made a very significant contribution to deliberations because of that experience. in my own case, the experience i had as a staff attorney want the legislative committee taught me a great -- as a staff attorney of the legislative committee taught me a great deal and has affected my work. so i think different backgrounds is a plus. >> what year did you serve on the judiciary subcommittee? >> i think it was 1951. >> who was there at the time, the chairman? >> many sour was the chairman. he was a democrat from brooklyn. chauncey read was the senior minority member. he was a republican from the page county, illinois. >> last question, what role does the legislature have, not

on the law, but play in a case? >> i think it is always significant. i think our job is trying to figure out what congress intended to do. i can remember being asked by members of the committee about rather tricky questions that might be presented in the case. i remember one congressmen, some of the difficulties i saw and face, and they say, let the judges figure that out. it is a cooperative venture. congress expects the judges to fill in holes in statute as it goes along, realizing it is not just trying to read words on a sterile piece of paper. it is important for a judge, i think. >> think, justice. >> thank you. -- thank you, justice. >> thank you. >> next, highlights from the

southern republican leadership conference which just wrapped up today. participants voting in a straw poll for the 2012 presidential elections selected mitt romney as their front runner for the republican nomination. runners-up included ron paul, sarah palin, and newt gingrich. now from day 3 of the congress, remarks from senator david bitter and former senator rich santorum. this is one hour, 10 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you very much. thank you. [applause] thank you so much. thank you, andy, and thanks to all of you for the warm welcome. even more than that, thanks for doing all that you do for our republican party, and thanks for doing it this week in louisiana.

we really appreciate that. [applause] and i want to give a special thanks to many of you who are backed, having been here, worked here, toiled here right after katrina, with church groups, civic groups from around of louisiana, the south, around the country, and a special, special thanks from the bottom of my heart as a louisiana andn for all of that help it in our time of need. thank you for your help in that. [applause] as you can tell, being here five years later, we are rebuilding very successfully and very aggressively. and thanks to young conservative reform leadership like bobby general and others, we are not just rebuilding, we are rebuilding smarter and stronger. we are not just rebuilding or

rethinking, we are reforming, renewing. and we need to all bring that same energy, vision, spirit to washington and our nation starting this fall. i know you are all up for that as well. [applause] we have been starting in louisiana trying to do that, rebuild smarter and stronger, not just the levees, but every part of society. heck, look at sports. in the nfl, we are not the aint's anymore, we are the world champion new orleans saints. give me a "who dat!"in politics, we have been turning old-style louisiana politics on its head for the better. it [applause] i am honored to be a small part

of that, in 2004, with the help of some of the folks in this room, i became the first republican u.s. senator ever elected by the people of louisiana. [applause] in 2007, we join together and sent to the governor's mansion that you we long once occupied a great visionary for our state and nation -- that huey long once occupied, a great visionary for our state, bobby jindel. [applause] this fall, in 2010, we're going to build on that success. i am going to become, with your help, the first ever to term republican senator from louisiana. [applause]

but even more importantly, that is going to be part of a national wave, bringing positive conservative change to washington, d.c., and our nation. and i am absolutely convinced of that. we have work to do, but i have no doubt. why is that? because while you were convening here of the past few days, i cannot be here until this morning, but i have been a few other places. this week i have ben to several places, lafayette, st. bernard, shreveport. almost every corner of our great state. it is interesting, and all of those places -- in all of those places i have heard exactly the same message, exactly the same theme as you and the speakers

here have articulated this week. and that is why we are going to be so successful in the fall. [applause] for instance, just thursday i was talking to an older guy who had grown up there. he did not look anything like newt gingrich, he did not speak anything like newt gingrich, but he said just about the same things. he said, in his own louisiana way, he said i have been a democrat all my life, but this president and this administration are radical and they scare me. [applause] in the last 24 hours, i have heard something else from many people in those stops all around the state. i have heard of that is the

choice in 2012, i will take a tv personality over a community organizer and the day. -- community organizer any day. [applause] so keep fighting. keep organizing. keep being positive. keep offering clear conservative alternatives. as we march towards victory in the fall. and one more thing, and i think this is really important -- keep reaching out to our friends, our brothers and sisters in the tea party movement. keep doing that, too. [applause] i am going from this conference today directly to the north shore, just north of lake pontchartrain, to 80 party rally because i believe this is so

important. -- to a tea party rally because i believe this is so important. the republican party will be the vehicle for positive, conservative change, starting in this fall's election, but the tea party movement is going to be the fuel that fuels, even super charges that vehicle. and together, we're going to get to an astounding victory in the fall. [applause] and if you have any question, at any doubt about the importance and power of our movements put together, just look to the left. because they know what is coming and they are concerned. they are not maligning our efforts in the tea party movement for nothing. and be where, because now and the fall election, you will see that reached new heights, or i

should say new los. you will see a campaign to malign that movement like never before. just go to tea party.org if you don't know what i'm talking about. it is being laid out clearly. you will see a determined effort to try to issues that of movement -- to misuse that movement to split our vote. we are not going to fall for it, the american people are not going to fall for it, and we will march together to an historic victory in the fall, and thanks for being a huge part of that. [applause] thanks for being a huge part of that, and now it is my real honor to introduce someone else was going to be a huge part of that in 2010 and beyond.

rick santorum is a great american -- [applause] and i am very honored to call him a great personal friend. as a u.s. senator, rick was a leader in defending our role as a global leader in the fight to preserve democracy and human rights. he has stood up to foreign dictators, offering the syrian and accountability act and the iran freedom and support act to impose sanctions on those regulations and to promote democracy around the globe. rick also recognizes that free- market principles are the most effective way to remedy our ailing economy, and that we must reduce the size of government by reducing taxes and keeping our fiscal house in order. while in congress, rick fought to maintain fiscal sanity in a

city spiraling towards national bankruptcy, fighting for a balanced budget and line item veto. he spearheaded the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which helped it rebound the economy following september 11. rick believes that we must protect those who are most vulnerable, too, and has fought tirelessly for those who cannot fight for themselves. it was his legislation that outlawed the heinous procedures known as a partial birth abortions. [applause] rick also championed and successfully fought to pass the born alive infant protection act and the unborn victims of violence act, as well as combating autism act. [applause] and it. was also a leader in the effort

to pass -- and rick was also a leader in efforts to pass landmark reform act that empowered millions of americans to leave the welfare rolls and it to the promised land of the workplace, the promised land of american opportunity. rick keeps very busy right now as a senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center. he is a from a host of bill bennett's morning in america, a nationally syndicated radio program. he is a contributor on the fox news channel and a columnist with the philadelphia inquirer and is the president of a reston, va., based media company. but of all of those past and present accomplishments, rick focuses on as his highest accomplishment, his greatest accomplishment being a great husband and father, and he and his wife, sharon, have seven wonderful, wonderful children. please welcome a great american,

which santorum. -- rick santorum. [applause] >> thank you. appreciate it. thank you. thank you very much, david, and thank you for welcoming me here to the louisiana. thank you for the outstanding leadership, conservative leadership, principled conservative leadership. i don't think you will find a more conservative voting record, stronger principled voting record. he has a tough election. i know it is louisiana, but he has a tough election and we have to help david make sure that he gets six more years in the u.s. senate. [applause]

i heard a few aws when people heard i have seven children. we have seven children. my wife is back home with six of my kids, one is in college, and we have a almost 2-year-old, thanks be to god. they are watching on c-span. i would just like to say hi, honey, and to the kids. >> one of the things that you know because you are active in politics is the great sacrifices that families may when people are and -- that families make when people are in office. we have to understand that. i always ask people, people come up and say, what can i do to pray for you? i say, pray for the families of those who are on the front lines. without those families there, nothing is possible. [applause] what i am going to do in my talked is i am going to speak for a few minutes and i will leave some time for questions

and answers. one of the things i have learned since i have been out of politics three years, reporters ask, what are you doing here? you lost your last election. what are you doing here? you are not a sitting anything. the few things i have learned, one of the reasons every presentation i do question and answers, when i was in congress and what i saw was leaders spent much time talking to each other and not enough time listening to you. [applause] second, and this is very important, you have a very important role, not just supporting us but holding us accountable. you can hold us accountable by coming to the meetings and meeting with us and asking tough questions and expecting good dancers, throat cancers of not just what we think but why we think -- expecting good answers, thoreau answers, of not just what we think, but why we think, without a teleprompter. why am i here?

that is a question i get all the time. i am here because like many of you and millions of tea party members across the country, we have been sitting over the last year with a sense of alarm that has just gone up exponentially. as january 20, 2009 turned into a stimulus package. here we are in the throes of potentially the greatest recession since the great depression, and we have a president of the united states who cares not about solving problems but simply about passing an ideological agenda, his wish list of liberal ideas, and ignores the difficulties the country is an, try to solve problems of putting people back to where in order to appease an ideology. then we see, as the recession continues on and unemployment creeps up, we see a president focused on another ideological achievement, the ideological

achievement of taking over the health-care sector, of wrapping the government's hands around the throats of every american by controlling their access to health care. that is the ideological achievement that has been pushed aside, solving problems, dealing with deficits, unemployment, the security problems we have, focused like a laser beam for almost a year on trying to shove down the throats of the american public and ideal -- an ideal. and we sat in frustration, and many of us thought, this cannot actually happened. because the american people, the more they learn and oppose it, and of course washington will listen to us. and i think as the tea party members have recognized and we who have been and politics have recognized, washington only listens in november.

washington only listens when people focus and elect people who represent their values in november. what happened to us in 2008 and 2006, i know, is that the american people said they don't believe that what republicans have said they were for, that they were willing to go out and do. we let america down. i say that conservatism did not fail america. conservatives failed conservatism. [applause] so we have a burden had of us. when we talk about what to do things differently, people say, how can we trust you? we have had great speeches here. i have watched them, marvelous,

going after this president for the stimulus package and health care package. what he is doing to disarm america and make our country less secure. i always point to this -- to me, the best example i can use of this administration, how they viewed the security threat of our country is called the quadrennial defense review, which is a four-year review of the security policy. in these hundreds of pages that the pentagon put out, not one mention of the word "is mom," not one word "is on." -- islam. there are eight pages dedicated to global warming as a national security threat. this is the kind of misplaced, fuzzy-headed idealism that gets countries in a world of hurt, and a short time. that we have opened our arms to the world's enemies of america

and given the back of our hand to our friends, like israel and honduras and the poles and czechs and the brits, and the list goes on. this is a very, very dangerous and alarming time, and that is why from sitting with my seven kids and my wife and saying, what? i cannot sit here anymore. we have to go out and do something. that is why in the days i have been here in troubled country, one of the things i see is a singular focus to resolve -- and resolved and the american people. it cannot just be about more government. a cannot just be about that. because you know what? let's be honest, we were guilty of more government when we were there. [applause] what is it that has really sparked this flame that is rn