>> tomorrow night the kentucky republican primary debate between the secretary of state, ran paul, and others. live coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the midterm elections are just six months away and could change the balance of power in washington third watch the candidate debates that have already taken place in key races across the country on line at the news c-span video library. circuit, watch it, click that, and share it -- all free. it is cable's latest gift to america. . people for leasing on the land. host: things. we will take a break from the discussion to check with tom baldwin, on the phone from london, the chief reporter at "the *." he will talk to us aboutthe

latest developments in the british election held last thursday. good morning. guest: hello. caller: that is the latest, are we closer to getting a government there in london? guest: yes, it is the same as before the election. by the constitution, gordon brown remains prime minister until he stops being so. we will have a new government next year. the talks are going on as we speak. it is between the conservative party and the liberal democrats about where they can form some sort of deal which would give the conservatives the majority that they need in the house of commons to form a stable government. they are already talking about this as forming a condemnation -- con for conservative, dem for

democrats and so on. it wil be tawdry and you'll hear more out it if you are in britain over the next few months. host:here's a headline in the papewhich says a 62% one the prime minister of now? guest: yes, there are certain annumber -- we have a three-pary system now. there are many in a certain party who want gordon brown out. this possible for labor to remain in power without gooden brown, and for gordon brown to stay in power to see through legislation on the new voting system. there was talk about the current system been so discredited. there are all kinds of permutations possible here. host: is there a time line to give the coalition together? guest: no, but i think that

there will be a point when people wonder why jordan brown is still looking up there after having lost the general election. there are also pressures from the markets who will want some former stability. when the markets stop trading on monday mor-- when the market stt trading on monday morning there is a possible reflection of the uncertainty in the country. host: what is the play between cameron and clay from trying to start their own government in moving brown aside? guest: that is what they're doing today. what stops thems they are not natural bedfellows. the liberal democrats are pro- european. the conservative party's are skeptics to the point of being public. -- been phobic.

the conservatives oppose forming a new government. it goes on and on. the liberal democrats are naturally progressive. for them to prop up our right wing party which they oppose locally on the ground would be big league for them. host: you touched briefly on the british markets and what they're hoping to see. if this new government is not formed by the end of the week, is this going to have some sort of long-term negative effect on the british market, and then by extension other economic markets around the world? guest: well, we do not know, france, germany, and most european countries have european countries have coalition governments.

this guy does not fall for them. we're not used to wait in britain and the may be more sensitive to it here. perhaps the british market is more important than that of some other countries as london is a financial center. host: our final question for you, tom. at any point does the constitution in britain allow for the queen to be involved? or will this be dealt with only by the politicians? guest: we do not have a written constitution which is pt of the problem. this is governed by conventions. the queen, she will not want to be dragged into this. she will be advised by a senior civil servant, be advised by ministers. she will be hoping very much that they will come, the different political leaders of the parties will come to an agreement without her being

dragged into the unseemly matter. the one thing she has achieved over the last 60 years on the turn i who is retiring this summer. 50 years old, born in new york city, she is a graduate of princeton, oxford, and harvard university. in 2003, she became the first woman dean of harvard law school. the formal supreme court announcement is expected as early as monday morning. we will carry that live and online at c-span.org.

>> the president got on the phone and said to me, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court, and i said to him -- i caught my breath and started to cry and said, thank you, mr. president. >> learn more about the nation's highest court through the eyes of those who served there and sees them's latest book, "the supreme court -- c-span [pause] latest book "the supreme court, " available in hardcover and as an e book. we will hear about efforts to change the age discrimination in employment act.

this is about two hours. f÷fñfñe÷cñf÷f÷añfñgñfñeñe÷eñcñfg >> i apologize for being late. we have convened this meeting to talk about a supreme court decision to enact legislation to ensure older workers are treated with the fairness they deserve. we will hear from my fellow iowan, jack. he devoted his life and loyal service to one company, and how did the company reward him for his dedication and hard work? they demoted him and other employees over the age of 50, gave his job to a younger employees who were

significantly less qualified. congress passed the aids discrimination in employment act. that made it -- the age discrimination in employment act. a jury ruled in his favor and concluded that age had been a motivating factor in his demotion. when his case was appealed to the supreme court, a majority of justices overturn this and decided to rewrite the law. the court and so -- tora of the standard and imposed a new standard -- tora of the standard and imposed a new standard, which congress has rejected.

-- tore up the standard and imposed a new standard. older workers have been hard hit by a the economy. over 2 million workers over 55 are unemployed, an all-time high since they began matching age and unemployment in 1948. the average age of unemployment for older job-seekers is twice as long as for other unemployed workers. according to statistics, more than 45,000 new charges of dave -- of age discrimination were charged in 2008 and if 2009. for decades we have a consistent standard. unfortunately, verisign -- there is a higher standard proof of

discrimination. i am going to introduce legislation that would reverse the course and restore the law to what it was for decades. it would make sure that once again older workers in this country enjoy full protection of law, and then i will turn to the senator. >> thank you, chairman harkin. as the baby boom generation faces into retirement, more of a search choosing to work past several retirement age. luckily, america's employers will need it because labor for across the huge worker shortage is over the years.

i look forward to improving the work force investment act to better meet the job training needs of older workers this year. today the committee looks at the issue of burden of proof in cases arising under the age discrimination and employment act. the u.s. supreme court recently held that in some cases the burden remains with the plaintiff. this means even when there is some evidence age may have been a factor, it still remains to the plaintiffs' cost burden to demonstrate the age was a reason for the -- the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate age was the reason. in the gross decision, the court found such differences to be

grounded squarely on statutory language of congress, and the fact that in 1991, congress amended its and adopted a shifting procedure but did not extend the same procedure. in trying to determine the best course of future action, a resume the testimony as well as resuming answers to the question better asked curator of i will not be able to stay for the hearing. i do have questions and know the answers will make all the difference. this will not be the first time, nor will it be the last time there is language into the supreme court. i do not have a problem with this. what disturbs me lately is the rhetoric but attaches itself.

the rhetoric manages itself in two ways. first there is a question of the competence itself. those who do not like it for political reasons fire off a complaint that the court got it wrong. that means the court not -- they did not disagree with the court. there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the court. that is an honest starting point, but to start with employing the rhetoric of the court is wrong needlessly and unjustly undermines the core's integrity and public confidence in the institution. we should have a robust debate about our legal and public policies, but we should not predicate that on claims the supreme court got it wrong.

this is true when it comes to issues arising under our discrimination statutes. now earlier congress have legitimate concerns about largely eliminating the statute of limitations. they were promptly labeled as anti-feminist and worse. these claims are bayliss -- baseless, yet their effect is often as effective as it is transparent. the sad truth is in our news cycle it is always more human to demonize the other side rather than to engage in destructive debate. that is like the irony of having a press conference. i believe the president was correct earlier this week when he noted the overblown rhetoric of public debate closes the door to compromise and undermines democratic deliberation.

ppppp i appreciate the time. >> i have a statement i would like to enter into the record for the chairman of the judiciary. our first witness -- we will hear from the chair of the eeoc. she served for the naacp legal defense and education fund and before the in the ford foundation peace and social justice program. your statement will be made part of the record, and if i could ask you to sum it up in five minutes or so, i would

appreciate it, but welcome back again. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss age discrimination and to protect older workers against the discrimination act, which supersedes the supreme court 2009 decision. this decision imposed new little burnings on plaintiffs' claims under the age discrimination and employment act of 1967, and the eeoc is here today to provide more details about some of the ccncerns. at the heart of every federal anti-discrimination statute is a congressional recognition the decisions of the workers should not be driven by stereotype or made on the basis of certain characteristics, including age. as congress noted more than 40 years ago when it was enacted,

the purpose of the act is to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age and prohibits arbitrary age discrimination in employment. nevertheless, workers objected to age discrimination today sometimes encounter an undue resistance as they pursue their claims. for example, some courts or judicial opinions have dismissed age-based comments as merely strayed remarks and consider them irrelevant as to the question of whether age discrimination occurred. these included calling the quake if "the old guy in the department." stating -- calling the plaintiff "the old guy in the department," saying he looked tired, referring to him as "old man," stating the goal was to attract younger talent and saying some workers were too old to get the

job done and that the company wanted to go to a young, aggressive group of people. it is difficult to reconcile this regard of the statements with congress's express purpose, and this is the backdrop against which the decision was announced. i would also like to refer you to a compelling example. in the case eeoc versus dodd county, after working for the company more than three years, he was forced to retire at age of 71 region more than 30 years, he was forced to retire at age of 71. the county told him it was creating a stress test to determine whether workers over the age of 70 could meet physical requirements of their jobs. the county never administered the test, and instead mr. hack

was forced to leave his job based on the assumption he would not be able to pass the test. as mr. gros will testify today, the u.s. supreme court decision has created new hurdles which age discrimination victims must now overcome in order to obtain relief. the court held that age discrimination plaintiffs must now prove the defendant employer would not have taken a challenge deployment action but for his or her age. as a result, unlike plaintiffs pursuing claims under title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964, its discrimination plaintiffs are no longer allowed to show discrimination was because of age by showing age was one of the factors that motivated an adverse employment decision. this creates a dichotomy with

title 7 that is confusing, unfortunate, and unnecessary. every court was presented with this question concluded that age discrimination plaintiffs should be able to proceed under the same standards as allowed in title 7. nothing in legislative history or the statutory language of the age discrimination act suggested that congress intended to subject victims of age discrimination to more stringent standard than victims of the types of discrimination prohibited by title 7. the case is causing concrete hardships for workers. although it appears to be an abstract set of principles, the hardships are real, and it is expressed in the decisions in a little under a year since the case was decided, were a plaintiff would be required to prove that not only was staged because for the unemployment

action but that it was the only reason -- because for unemployment action but it was the only reason. it has also been the case in at least one court that the decision was applied to limit relief for a plaintiff in an american with disabilities case, although there is no evidence that this congress intended for a more stringent standard to apply to ada plaintiffs. as a chief enforcer of federal law prohibiting employment discrimination, we are especially concerned by these developments. continued erosion of employment rights contravene congressional intent, and we believe it is important for this congress to correct it. legislation like protecting older workers against discrimination would insure age discrimination plaintiffs received the same court protections and are subject to

the same standards as title 7, nothing more, nothing less. we believe this would affect the original intent of the act, namely the discrimination of the basis of age, like discrimination on the basis of race, cover it -- color, national origin, sex, and religion has no place in the workplace. we stand ready to assist with this legislation or future related legislation. thank you for inviting me, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. let me turn a part of your testimony, and i want to get it straight. the supreme court -- i am referring to page 5 of your written testimony. the supreme court said that a

title seventh plaintiff could rely on direct or circumstantial evidence. that was in the 2003 case, but then you go on to point out that lower courts were split as to whether adea plaintiffs needed to present direct evidence. is that not the reason the court granted cert in the first place, to see if they should be parallel to title seven in terms of direct level? >> in that regard, yes. >> i read in the next paragraph that the court did not even reach that. basically, you are saying the

issue that comes before the was not even presented to the court. it was never briefed by the parties or amnesty briefs, and the council for the united states urged the court not to reach that issue. >> the solicitor general in the argument did raise the facts that the issue for causation was not briefed before the court, and a possible decision was based upon the ground. >> i want to get more into what is happening out there. you said there was a big surge in charges.

>> what our charge data shows is that between 1999 and 2009, age discrimination charges of a percentage of all charges of discrimination have risen to roughly one in four of the charges we have received, and perhaps of greatest interest to this vote, there has been of very dramatic increase in -- to this bill, there has been a very dramatic increase this stems from this church or termination of employment, and the figure us increased -- discharge or discrimination of unemployment. >> can you do that without this bill? >> we have concerns better to

fool. -- that are twofold. no one is the commission is litigating. more broadly we do follow the trends of the law, and in the years since the decision was announced, there were two worrisome developments from the standpoint of the commission and signs the gross decision not only will impact age discrimination plaintiffs by raising the standards under which they litigate but also that it might affect other people who are victims of discrimination of other forms. particularly, the decision indicates the gross holding might now be applied in americans with disabilities act cases, and in written testimony

in my statement that there are some courts that have moved away from the gross statement, which is more demanding than prior standards, and have even elevated it further to say that age must be the full cost of a discharge or adverse employment, and one consequence of that is people who have been discriminated against on multiple rounds -- for example, disabilities and race and age, and to abandon age claims even if they might otherwise be valid claims. >> thank you very much. your testimony is very helpful. you gave the percentages. it would be helpful if we have some more percentages and actual numbers as well. sometimes when the economy is

changing, some of those numbers are forced. >> we would be happy to provide any information. >> i do have a question we are going to be asking people whenever we have a labor issue, and that is, have you acted as an employer or manager in a non- governmental work place? >> i was a manager in the non- profit sector. >> thank you. as 1756 appears to provide that even in a mixed motive case for this employee has no remedy because the employer who has proven it would have taken the action, the lawyer may still be entitled to an award of legal fees. you think there would be our risk of rewarding attorneys' fees, even though it could

reduce the likelihood of settlement? >> i believe the standard that would apply for a plaintiff's lawyer is that they have to beat a prevailing party on a question of law, and monitor release is only a small part. settlement agreements are essentially designed to change practices going into the future, so it is not equivalent to no relief, and i think there maybe the case.

>> they are both within the purview of the eeoc, but a number of statutes that would be affected would affect something such as the relations act and the family medical leave act. do you think it is prudent to consider legislation affecting these agencies and departments? >> the testimony here concerns this legislation, and we have indicated if there is any form of assistance we can provide, if clarification would be useful or any concerns aren't raised, we stand ready to do that, but i believe this legislation does focus precisely on the issues of age discrimination and context.

>> can its show improper motive and under what circumstances? >> i did not hear the question period 10 am -- >> can employment statistics alone approved an improper motive? >> no, and that is not the case in any of the existing laws. the statistics are relevant, and they may raise an inference of discrimination, but courts require more than that common recognizing the congress has consistently indicated concerns reaping more than that, recognizing congress has consistently indicated concerns. >> i appreciate your concise answers.

senator hart earlier used statistics. older people have higher unemployment numbers. i remember when i was mayor the most of the people that came to agilent, wyoming, where young -- gilette, wyoming, where young people. they do not move to where the job is. they went to where the unemployment is, and that drives of statistics, too. i appreciate the chance to ask questions. the closer the statistics it to 100%, the more relevant they are.

senator casey? >> thank you very much. i wanted to say first of all, thank you for your testimony and your work. by way of background, it informs some of your lines of questions i will pursue in the short amount of time we have. when i was a young lawyer, i worked a number of cases involving discrimination, and at that time, i was working with the senior member of a small law firm in my hometown of scranton, pa., and did not develop expertise but was exposed to these cases that i had a sense that the statutory basis for a discrimination -- for age

discrimination, but what really became apparent to me was how difficult these cases were to litigate from the perspective of the plaintiffs all those years ago. this would be the 1990's -- even under the old standard were you did not have the case we were discussing today. i wanted to first of all highlight one statement from your testimony. i want to highlight this to make sure i understand this. based on your analysis of the case, you're saying the middle of the second paragraph, even if a defendant had myths that it took in adverse employment action from last they came --

unless they can prove they would have made the decision anyway. unless the plaintiff admitted that age was part of the decision-making process, the plaintiff will prevail. is that correct? >> that is correct. the defendant could easily admit age was it, but the plaintiff is still required to show the decision -- it is difficult to describe it, but the decision still lies with the plaintiff. the standard recognize that where age was a motivating factor that the burden ought to be the employers to prove it was not the reason for the

action. many employment cases do not present there is only one reason, or it is clear to isolate reason, so as you will hear from mr. gross and his case, age was one of the reasons, but there are other reasons cited, and it is the citation of other reasons that would have shifted the burden to the employer and now immane the burden -- now remain the burden of the plaintiff. >> these are tough cases from the plaintiff's side even under the old standard. i think maybe the popular standard is the cases are filed of the court house, and before you know if you are in front of a jury, and the rest is history,

but you have to file papers, and you have to get a lawyer to do the. the other thing is you do not just file in federal court, and then you're off to the races. you have to go through the process or the relevant state. some may say, that happens with a lot of cases. the length does not tell you much about it, but one thing that is not clear is you rarely have the statement that shows off the page -- that shows off the page.

-- when jumps off the page. it has always been a practice behavior to avoid using language that is pretty discriminatory. i am running out of time, but i have a please three problems. first, these are complex to begin with. second, you have the economic trauma workers are living through right now. older workers are losing their jobs unlikely being discriminated against to a greater degree. the third complicating factor is the decision, and i think what you said in your testimony -- you said in analyzing why we need this in view, they would

legislate to ensure the plaintiffs receive the same court protection and are subject to authorization with respect to treatment claims, so in essence we are trying to be consistent with other cases. we are returning to an old standard. it is really returning to an old standard. thank you for your testimony. >> senator frank? >> thank you for your work. you're saying in the seventh circuit that you're applying the gross standard to disability. >> in one case, they have.

>> you have held that is ok? >> yes. >> laissez -- let's say they say, is there any reason to fire this person decides rick -- decide age? they say, is 30%. how about because disability? >> that is about 30%. what about the other 40% inability to adapt. social networking was not enough. sales are down. there is no plurality theire under the grosz ruling. they say you do not prevail. >> i think the way it is often

presented is a person will come in. they will file a charge with a commission. they will say, i was fired in. they may say the kinds of statements. i was regulate called regina regularly called the old guy in the office. i was not keeping. that is one evidence. >> i am saying where the employer does not even acknowledge it.

the employee would not be ruled in his favor. >> before grows, the kinds of facts you just suggested would have left the door open for the plaintiff's lawyer to of for a jury to be instructed common meaning for the jury to hear that -- instructed, meaning the jury to hear that age was one reason, it can file with the plaintiff. now the standard would be if the employer was able to show they would have made the same decision anyway, yet there was this stage, and for there was other evidence presented --

there was this stage, and for there was other evidence presented, -- age comment, or there was other evidence presented. >> the disability was not the problem either. what i am saying is the logic seems pretty perverse. last year of how an amendment that prohibits tax payer money from going to contractors that forced their employees for dumas -- discrimination claims. this refers to a woman who was gang raped by her employers, and she had to arbitrate it in a secret tribunal paid for by kbr.

eeoc -- does the eeoc have mandatory civil rights claims? i think it is harmful to enforce those as anything else. does the eeoc have an opinion on that? >> we have issued statements about the risk of rights that mandatory arbitration could interfere with rights and the appropriate rights under federal law. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here. i am concerned about how the laws passed by congress can impact small businesses, which are certainly the drivers of

economic growth and job creation. some people believe the position -- the gross decision could be good for small business, and my question is how you think the proposed legislation would in fact small business, and could there be more paperwork, more litigation, and are there other ways this legislate -- this legislation might impact small business? >> in our experience, small business of a larger industries or employers look to the commission for guidance about how to comply with the laws congress has passed, and we have a very targeted and widespread out reach program to try to reach those businesses, to try to inform them about what the law requires. one of the risks about the gross decision is it makes the standards more confusing. it sets one standard for age

cases, different standards for reyes, national origin, religion -- race, national origin, and religion, and that difference about what kind of conduct would be possibly illegal or what might subject and to liability in court is largely a confusing possibility, but we do aggressive outreach to try to make sure we do everything that is required under the laws that are enforced, and i believe businesses of all sizes are not only aware but are often in complete accord with those putnam -- that work places that are exclusive are ultimately the four businesses. we certainly do not want age discrimination -- >> we certainly do not want its

discrimination, but i am glad to hear about your out reach. >> we are actually good many of the end of were specifically targeted region we actually did many events that were specifically targeted to age discrimination, but i would be happy to provide specific data about the events around the country. >> i think that is good, because we have got to educate small businesses. sometimes businesses make a calculation to offer early retirement to older workers went of businesses need to downsize, and i believe it is important to give businesses the ability to make thrown decision to leave the situation up to the workers. could this become a factor when companies are trying to offer early retirement plans thurman

-- plans? i would not want to seen in companies offer a less generous packages to older employees. can you comment on that? >> one reason it has reason is because people are working longer, sometimes out of economic necessity, so we do have more older workers. your concern is an important one, and one thing that age discrimination and employment act recognizes is while it is sometimes true that older workers are the top compensated workers or people for whom there may be economic interests in moving toward the retirement status, that is not always true. there are older workers who are less compensated. there are younger workers who

are sometimes compensation more highly. age is not the proxy for making essentially an economic decision effect is what is happening. finally, the employers are able to seek waivers where an employee chooses to except a retirement package, and they do not have to do that at the risk of a later lawsuits if they obtain an appropriate waiver. there are protections on both sides, and the laws in this area are balancing some important interests. the right of the employees and workforce to be free from discrimination. >> thank you, senator. thank you for being here. thank you for your testimony.

now i personally want to thank you for your great work. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> now we turn to our second panel. but is jack, gail, and evelyn. mr. judd rose was born and lived his entire life in iowa. he worked for the farm bureau. he is here to testify.

prof. norton is an associate professor of the university of colorado school of law. prior to the common -- prior to that, prof. norton work in the coordination and review sectors. gail aldrich is a member of the aarp board of directors. she served as the chief membership officer for the society of human resource management and was senior vice president and chief administrative office of the california automobile association. eric is a partner of the law firm from 2003 until 2005. prior to becoming general counsel, he served as a tv director of the wage and hour

and -- as deputy director of the wage and hour division. thank you for being here. i would like to ask if you could somehow in five minutes. first, we turn to mr. gross. i know you wish it was the other was reasons -- it was the other way. this has now become the focus of legislative interest in overcoming the supreme court decision. thank you for being here, and please proceed. >> committee members, and i will like to say it again how proud i am to have a fellow ireland

leading this important cause -- fire when -- iowan leading this important cause. so many people like myself have experienced age discrimination. you invited me your to assure my story since i have been associated with age discrimination. i certainly never a imagined my case would end up here, but i would like for you to keep in mind that while i think my cases personal and unique, it is one being duplicated millions of times around the country, and those millions of people who are also dependent on those behind me, at least in spirit. seven years ago, much to my surprise, my employer suddenly demoted not all claims to employees who were 50 and over

and supervisors. i was included, even though i had 13 consecutive years of performance reviews in the top 3% to 5% of the company and dedicated most of my career to making it a better company. my contributions were exceptional, well-documented, and there was a chance to hear about all those. i filed a complaint, and two years later, a jury spent an entire week listening to all the testimony, seeing the evidence, and being instructed on the law. the verdict came back in my favor, despite what my attorneys called any event, and i thought the ordeal was over in 2005. after that, i got my verdict returned, even the lawyer prove

my case by the evidence. the appeals court said i did not show the right kind of evidence. i am still not sure i know what all that means. that left us no choice but to leave it to the supreme court, and we were thrilled, because getting to the supreme court is pretty hard to do, and we were quite frankly very optimistic knowing that 30 decades of court president and legislative action had done nothing that reinforced delaunay on age discrimination. when we got there, the supreme court when with their own protocol and allowed the defense to vance and entirely new argument that had not been briefed, nor would it -- the defense to advance an entirely new argument that had not been briefed to us.

they had checked my case as a vehicle to water down the age discrimination in employment act, a law written when i was 19 years old. my wife and i came to d.c. last year, believing the law consistently required -- applied to all areas of discrimination. instead, all other types of discrimination were a lower tier and regarded as different levels of proof. to me age discrimination is discrimination and feels about the same, regardless of gender or race or because you happen to grow old, all things beyond a worker cost control. we interpret the law to mean

there should be equality in the workplace and as long as you're willing and able to do the job, regardless of circumstances beyond your control. i have been particularly distressed over the collateral damage that has now been inflicted upon others because of the court's ruling. i hate having my name associated with the pain and injustice now being inflicted on older workers because it is nearly impossible to get the level of truth required by the court. i have to keep reminding myself i am not the relief -- not really the one who changed the law. supreme court justices did that. we can argue one person actually changed it. i ever believe congress has a long history of working together to maintain a level playing field in the workplace. now ada is one example, that

simply states everyone has a right to be treated equal. i am here on behalf of myself and other millions of americans who want to keep working to pass this bill in the same bipartisan spirit we have shown in the past. my dad was -- my mother was a school children. i overcame a chronic health problems to achieve success. my wife and i have been married for 33 years. now we started out with absolutely nothing but a strong work ethic and a determination to build a good life, and we did. we have two wonderful grown children and two grandchildren. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

xg8a8a4c(c8a0aegxc0a(c c8c(c8c0c

in los angeles. it is just under an hour. ♪

>> the republican u.s. candidates debate. >> thank you for joining us. this is the u.s. senatorial primary debate featuring the three leading candidates for t publican nomination, tom campbell, chuck devore, and carly fiorina. we are at the museum of toleranc and the representatives of the league of women's voters who have provided the guidelines for tonight's debate. joining me are three colleagues, warren armstrong, mark mathews, and john north. we have drawn straws for the order in which the first question will be answered. warren armstrong, your question tom campbell followed by chuck devore and carly fiorina. candidate, if you will each have

60 seconds to respond. >> what are your conservative credentials that separate you from the other candidates? >> may i first began with the word of thanks to the league of women voters, to abc, and to the museum of tolerance. i'm so pleased to be here. i served in the administration of former reagan. i served five terms in the united states house of representives. and the united -- and the national taxpayers union foundation rated me the single highest of the house of representatives. i could not be no. 3 -- #one and all of them. there is ron paul and congress as well. barbara boxer -- to be

back. we're reminded never to forget the members of the holocaust and it is a wonderful place that teaches tolerance and the great diversity that we have in this country. on like my two opponents, i am not a career politician. i've never run for public office before. i believe our founding fathers intended ours to be a citizen government, by, for, and of the people. i am proud of the conservative endorsements that i've received.

i am particularly proud to have signed a taxpayer protection pledge the day i announced my candidacy. it's something mr. campbell was reduced to do. i think washington, d.c. has a spending problem and i think that when somebody has a spending problem, you quit sending them money. our month -- our government is too big and too expensive and too intrusive. >> t oil rig blowout in the gulf of mexico has caused the government to reduce -- the governor to reduce his position on offshore drilling position. they have called for an outright ban. has it changed your thinking? >> it is not changed my thinking at all on the matter. what is very unfortunate about governors originator reacting more to the winds o popular opinion than being anchored to principles is by saying to more offshore drilling, what he is consigning california to is more supertankers, you have to tanker it in from nations that

hate our guts and use the money that we send them to fund terrorists who are trying to kill us. supertankers are more dangerous and have more accidents than off shore rigs. the accident that happened in the gulf mexico, that tragic accident happened in 5,000 feet of water with a semisubmersible rigs. we hav shallow waters off the coast of california and the rigs are have scaffolding that go clear down to the ocean's surface. it is completely different. the rigs off of california cannot sink at all. i am very disappointedith the governor. it was my bill last year that the state senate passed tt would have opened up the first new off shore lease in 40 years in california. >> you can call me carly. we've known each other for a little while. most of us -- first of all, it is a trage what is going on in the gulf. it is a human tragedy. we lost 11 lives. is an economic tragedy and

certainly an environmental tragedy and we should make sure that this never happens again, and it turns out that not only did we have a technology problem but we also foreseeable have a regulatory proem. nevertheless i believe off shore drilling is absolutely necessary. you must take advantage of every source of energy that we have in this country. i would say that 20 years ago we could have chosen to drill in anwar and an environmentally responsible way. a place that is far away from population, that is not off shore, but extreme environmentalists prevented us from doing that. i think we need a comprehensive energy policy in this country and we needed now. >> i've always opposed putting new drilling platforms off the coast of california. i am very sorry to see what is happening in the gulf ani thinkpdate -- a position of consistency over the years should matter for something on this. i did think that we control from the coast.

the slant of drilling is infinitely more technologically capable than it was even a year ago. i appreciate the attention my two colleagues have given me. the only better thing would of been less attention. the people who signed the no new tax pledge, if you think about it, george h. w. bush who pursued the sake, you should not read my lips after role. people who did not sign the pledge includeonald reagan, howard jarvis, you do not know what the future is going to be. take a look at my record. you will not find that i increased taxes on the american people in the income tax area or any other area for the budget purposes in all the years i was in congress. i've they only found three specific and i will deal with them next time. >> miss fiorina, the arizona immigration law is condemned by mexico, my other countries, by

many of the state's governors, and by police forces even though it is been modified. you supported or condemn it? >> it is also supported by at least 60% of the american peoplee the highest percentage of that is the people of arizona. i have consistently supported the law. the vilification of the people of arizona clouds the issue. the real issue here is that the federal government has failed to its job. as the federal government's job to secure the border and the federal government has failed to do so, and so unfortunately the good people of arizona are trying to protect their own citizens and have done what they felt was necessary. i believe that instead of calling for comprehensive immigration rorm as bopper boxer and from what -- as barbara boxer in president obama are doing, they should step up and do their jobs. president obama, in trying to state -- and tried it -- instead of trying to change the subject, i do it -- should do his job.

he needs no new legislation to secure the border. >> the guest worker program needs to be part of the american economy. it is very important for california to benefit from guest workers who come he for a period of years -- excuse me, a period of months or a season and then must leave or they will not be invited back. we have high-tech for that and agriculture, vises and an e- verify program to lk -- that requires employers to check and make sure there's not a fraudulent use of the social security number. of border fence across the border and serious, serious employer sanctions. do i support what arizona did? arizona is totally within its rights in doing what it did. the state of california should watch and see. i've been attacked from the left because i have supported arizonas rights and i want to make sure that arizona is -- i want to make it quite clear

that arizona is acting constitutionally. all the bill does is say that when you have reasonable suspicion on an otherwise legal stop, ask about the immigration status as well. >> i support the arizona law and i am the only republican up here who unambiguously opposes amnesty. one of my opponents, miss the arena, was going all over the map on this issue where she was actually ascribing to racist overtones, republican concerns about controlling our borders. the last job i had in the army national guard and california is that i was the deputy j-1. i helped plan the mission that augmented the national ard down on the border as we were helping the border control -- the border patrol get control of our borders, as we were building a double fence with the road in between it. that worked. and now what has happened is illegal immigration has crossed over into arizona because the california border is far more secure. we know fences wk. thvirtual fences are virtually

worthless. we must complete a physical barrier on rigid barrier on our southern border. >> decide -- despite significant rain and snowfall this winr and spring, the entire state of california still faces a severe water crisis especially in the central valley where drought and environmental regulations have crippled farming and there have been other problems. what specific action should congress take to keep the water flow into all the cities and the farms and still protect the ecosystems of the sacramento delta? >> there is nothing more important than the enomy of california been getting industr and agricultural moving again and water makes that happen. we need to open up the floodgates once again. that was done back for the snail darter in the 1970's and this could be done in the context of the delta. we need to build more reservoirs and and bill -- and build an expanded dam, the site reservoir

north of the delta. those of the steps to take our 48-year-old -- last time it was touched -- water infrastructure into the present system. if we do not do that, we will continue to have a sequence of years -- dry years that are wet and during the years that are dry, if you do not make it worst by having a government-sponsored drought. those are the steps that we should take for the long term. i am sorry to say, but senator boxer did not help when senator instein tried to. >> this is an issue the requires some government action and i believe some balance with the endangered species act. we need to have people at least as important as fish and clearly th is not happening with the endangered species act. senator jim demint offered a one time, one year narrowly drafted exemption to the danger species act so that we could get the pumps turned on in the central

valley. he was attacked by senator feinstein for his move. i am proud to count senator jim demint as one of his supporters -- some of my -- one of my supporters. i agree that we need more storage and conveyance in the state of california, but we ought to do it with the bond -- would that we ought not do it with a bond that has been so laed up with pork that it has doubled in cost in the last week. unfortunately ms. fiorina supports that water bond. it supports money for it called course in los angeles and bike trails in tahoe and water taxis in tahoe. i thoht we were opposed this type of irresponsible spending. >> one of the reasons i have stepped forward to run for the u.s. senate is because barbara boxer is a failed senator. she has failed california an there is no more clear example of this than what is going on in our central valley. that part of our great state is struggling with almost 40% unemployment because barbara

boxer does not understand that families are more important than fish. we all want to protect our environment but common sense tells is there must be a balance. to turn the water back on in the delta reqres one very simple plane. it requires an amendment to pass the u.s. senate to override the biological assessment that was written by a nameless, faceless bureaucrat accountable to no 13 barbara boxer, cirwoman of the public works committee, could put forward that amendment. she has revoked -- she has refused to vote for an amendment. she has refused to stand by. the firsthing i will do is walk into senator dianne feinstein's amendment and turn the water back on. >> in the interest of time, w will limit our responses now with this portion to 30 seconds. >> let'shou hedge fund managers continue to be taxed at a lower rate than mostf the rest of americans, and if so, why?

ion't think we should be raising taxes on any activity in america right now. we of a problem with too many taxes, not too few. if you look at hedge funds in particular, to the degree that we increase regulation and taxes on hedge funds, we're going to drive the activity off shore to other nations where they get the profits and there will be no regulation whatsoever. so i am opposed to it. >> career politicians never deal with the problem in front of them for the problem in front of us right now was the crisis on wall street. taxing hedge funds would not have prevented the wall street meltdown. it would not have prevented bill brock -- the main street meltdown either. we have 20 agencies that is supposed to be overseeing wall street and they have failed in their duty. we have fannie and freddie that have 5 of the heap -- of the u.s. mortgages. they are under u.s. conservatorship right now and they are being propped up by the

taxpayer, and yet an sec official has eight hours a day to watch pornography courtesy to of the american taxpayer paying them $220,000 a year. >> the taxation of what is called carried interest should not be adjusted. it is exactly the wrong time to do that in the united states. in the health care bill, the president suggested that he finances this month stress at a of a health-care bill in part by taxing those who invested you make more than $250,000 and filing jointly. >> we have gotten off to a pretty good start. taxes, wer, immigration, energy issues. we will be back in a few minutes with more. welcome back. we continue our debateetween the three candidates for the u.s. nomination on the

republicans had three we will start with john north. >> back to immigration. there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigration in this country. what do you do with them? the round them all up and then send them home and offer anyone a pathway to citizenship? >> you address that question only after you have secured the border. you're only inviting more people across the border illegally. it was for that -- a mistake the president ronald reagan made, that president jimmy carter made, and a senator -- and a mistake that senator john mccain made. all oleaster use secure the border. i might use this occasion to respond to my good friend chuck devore. i never favored amnesty. when you make the statement that you are the onlone who is unequivocably opposed to that, i do not know the source for that. amnesty is a serious mistake. it takes the opportunity that is earned by those who obey the

law, waited their time, and gives that to somebody who broke all. the first that is to get that border secure and notice how the democrats running the senate and house and the president had said, let's call it comprehensive and it is not comprehensive unless we have a pathway to citizenship, and because you will not secure the border, you will have more illegal aliens enter in and you will attract them by their reasons of the suggestions better in the bill. >> the federal government has two jobs here. it is the federal government's job to secure the border and to create a temporary worker program that works. and the federal government has failed and both of its responsibilities. and once again, career politicians like barbara boxer are trying to change the subject by claiming the arizona law is not constitutional. president obama is trying to change the subject by saying he needs comprehensive immigration reform to do his job. that is why we do not need comprehensive immigration reform to do what needs to be done. the truth is tt there are all

kinds of people trying to change the subject, and i have to respond, chuck devore spent a lot of time mischaracterizing my words but i think that extreme rhetoric on both sides of this debate is not helpful. when he is quoted this morning as saying that if you see a group of men standing outside the home depot, looking for work and they are speaking spish, then they should be asked for their papers. that is notelpful. we have many men, hardworking american citizens w perhaps speak spanish looking for work because we have unemployment in this state above 13%. >> i find it all little bit amusing that carly fiorina has now made three references to career politicians and if y notice, she cannot actually answer the question was posed to her much like a career politician. [laughter] let's be very specific. i do not believe in amnesty. double and ignited it like, chuck, as you know.

>> well we just made some news here tonight. all of us are now firmly on record against amnesty. that is good progress i am glad you've med towards my position. what we need to do is the following three anything that we do must be fair and follow the rule balal. what we need to do is ensure that people who are already here have the opportunity to go back out of the country, get a visa to come back into the country, and they cannot get their citizenship until everyone who has been waiting patiently and legally overseas has tha opportunity to become an american citizen. whatever we do it cannot be unfair to those people who have been falling -- following the law. >> was the financial market crisis a failure of deregulation policy, and if you think it was, do we need tighter regulation? >> it was absolutely not a failure of regulation or

deregulation. it with you to government distortions of the marketplace, specifically fannie mae and freddie mac, two government- sponsored entities that were given car blanche with a taxpayer money to indulge in what is known as moral hazard, so what they're doing is playing with other people's money backed up with an implicit taxpayer guarantee. that call didn't -- that caused investment in these exotic derivatives. it caused an inflation of housing prices and eventually caused the crash. the problem with e bailout of wall streeis that it did not address the fundamental problems that were caused precisely by the government. i note with interest that both of my opponents, bof my opponents supported the bailout of wall street. in the case of carly fiorina, while she was chief economic advise to john mccain, and in the case of tom campbell, on the front forum. i was the only one that came out and staked out a position against the bailouts before they happen. >> mr. campbell?

dollar once again my good friend has a selective memory for the federal reserve board took the toxic -- toxic aets off the bank's balance sheets. it was supposed to be that treasury would do it with the supposed tarp money. instead, the federal reserve did. that step was the right step to take but that -- so the banks would not lend otherwise. by contrast the bailout for that tarp money was redirected in a bait and switch to bail out general motors, the bailout aig, to bail out freddie mac and fannie mae. all those points of the bailout and those are strongly opposed. was there a failure regulation? the failure was when congress told freddie mac and fannie mae and i remember this statement from barney frank, roll the dice, he said. roll the dice. support those mortgages even if they're not commercially acceptable to support. go ahead. and we got into trouble. those mortgages that should not have passed commercial tests were then able to gather into a

security, sold the banks, and the rest is sad history. >> ms. fiorina? >> i don't often agree with tom campbell. he agrees with barbara boxer too often for my taste. but i agree with him that chuck devore has a selective memory. the wall street crisis was partially a reflection of a failure in regulations. for example, if glass-steagall were p back in place today, something that mr. campbell favors, the wall street crisis was still have happened. we had 20 or more regulatory agencies not doing their job. fannie and freddie are a huge part of this problem. one of the things that has happened in the dead of night is that the ceiling for conservatorship of fannie and freddie was raised from $400 billion to an unlimited ceiling. in other words, the u.s. taxpayer is on the hook. we cannot solve the wall street -- wall street crisis unless we ensure transparency on wall

street, accountability for people to take debts that are too risky. i have called for many years for anyone that takes a bailout to resign and tender the resignation of eir entire board. >> let's stay with this financial pain, if we can. how much power or control should the government have over wall street? >> insofar as power or control over wall street, what we're trying to do is on as the forces of the free market. government is a port taskmaster of the free-market. government always ends up playing to those people who can influence it. those people with the big campaign donations -- for example, in the case of carly fiorina, she was talking about cfo's taking bailout money resigning. that should include the individuals who contributed to your campaign which you never called for their resignation, funny thing. bu in any event, what we need

to addresses the fundamental issue that is less regulation, less red tape, and less tes that will get this economy moving. government does not have a monopoly on common sense. government is not goi to rescue us from this current malaise. >> miss fiorina? >> the problem, of course, is that wall street leading up to the crisis was not a pure free market. the problem is that the mortgage market was influenced by political agendas, fannie and freddie were influenced by political agendas from both republicans and democrats. fannie mae and freddie mac were entitled to borrow money at far below going market rates because they had an implied guarantee from the government. wall street was creating a whole set of extremely complex financial instruments. nevertheless, the government now needs to understand what went wrong and fix it. we do not have too few regulating agencies in

washington. we have too many, 20 plus. but what is far boxer and president obama's answer to these government agencies that failed in their jobs? never mind those failures. let's create yet another agency, the consumer protection agency, hire a bunch of federal employees, let's ask the american taxpayers to fund those employees and somehow magically that is cortisol the problem. >> we should never have repealed glass-eagall, we should never have embraced too big to fail. i was a member of the house of representatives for five terms. in 1999, the leadership of my party and the president of the united states as congress to repeal glass-steagall. that allowed the base to get bigger. investment banks and commercial banks could stand up under the banking holding company until they became too big to fail. only five republicans voted no. i was one of those guys. the mistake is that you allow the federal grantee to get

beyond a very narrow area. there is on our own personal savings and checking account federal insurance, and there is a role for the federal government to ensure. the fdic in particular. freedom to succeed and responsibility if you fail. break up these huge conglomerations that have become too big to fail, limit the federal guarantee just to the deposits under fdic, and let the free market decide who the winners and who the losers are. >> what i would like to ask you about is the environment. in november california is going to be asked to vote against the landmark green house emissions law, and do yobelieve there's global warming? ando you believe it can be controlled? >> i think we should have the courage to examine the science behind global warming. even people who are convinced that global warming is real are also convinced that a single state or a single country acting

alone can make no difference. i believe it is a disastrous flop. i believe the cap-and-trade will be east relief --qually disastrous. the lock is a killer. while shells would we have bipartisan support for a proposal that says it should be suspended until unemployment in california reaches 5%. if that is not and and mission that it is a job killer, what is? we must have a compressor -- a comprehensive immigration policy and instead of punishing producers with fuel and punishing producers of fuel, let's innovate so that we can lead in the 21st century. >> the evidence is not as conclusive as the united nations thought it was. indeed the number of flaws in their research is so embarrassing that they've announced they will have to go back. but the right questions are still the same. is there a change in our environment due to human behavior which can be ameliorated by any of these

proposals? those facts are not yet established. not at all. asor the law, we should delay its implementation until the unemployment rate is at a reasonable level. e proposal was not only cap and trade. there could have been another way of implementing it. the california air resources board decided not to choose the alternative. instead, the imposed cap and trade. i am unequivocably opposed to that. it requires a monitor -- think about it -- at every place in the state that the midst carbon mark -- dioxide, there must be a monitor to watch and determine whether you're producing beyond your limits. the degree of intrusiveness will be unparalleled in california history. >> i voted against 8032 on the floor of the assembly. it's distressing to hear tom campbell talk about this issue. he has backed a number of cbon taxes as a way of curtailing

our emissions of greenhouse taxes. quoting no higher an authority than carly fiorina on carly fiorina, she supported cap-and- trade during the campaign of 2008. i am glad that we have some converts over to the sensible conservative way of thinking. the fact is that if california were to employment 8032, it would require a 30% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions in only 10 years. if we got rid of allhe electrical production, you would not make the no. 3 is the guy rid of all privately owned automobiles, you would not make the number. if you eliminated california off the face of the year, and one year's worth of economic growth from china, you would make up the difference. we need to solve this problem through innovation and through wealth creation, not through red tape and putting people out of work. >> warren armstrong? the dollar back to mr. campbell now? >> if you guys cannot keep it straight, we're in trouble. >> i think we jumped, but that

is all right. >> ms. fiorina, we go to you. spite some of the highest unemployment in the country, many central valley leaders believe that their region is being neglected. a majority of the federal stimulus dollars went to northern and southern california. what can you do to make sure that all of california receives proper representation and its fair share of federal funds? >> i reject the premise of your question because you assume that the federal stimulus program has been helpful to california. i am sure it has created a job or two but the reality is that the unemployment rate in california has climbed since the implementation of whatever federal stimulus dollars have come to california. that is not how we're going to get the economy back on track. i have lived the american dream. i started out as a receptionist. i typed, i filed, i answered the phone. the people who are going to get the american dream back on track are small business owners, family businesses, innovators

and intrapreneur, and we're making it too hard for them to succeed. let us cut the size of government 3 let us cut taxes. let us cut regulation and let hard working men and women do what they do best, create the american dream for themselves and their families. the federal government does not create the american dream, although they can destroy it. we did not get hold of our government, take it back, make it listen to make it work, we wi continue to have record unemployment in the state. the dollar the federal government cannot solve this problem. the very basis of the question, what can the federal government do? how can we get federal dollars? we need less red tape, less government programs, more innovation, more hard work, more individual innovation and responsibility. if you look at the central valley, you'll see one of the most agriculturally productive areas on the planet. you see enormous natural resources, and then you see the federal government and state

government bureaucratslocking the proper uses of these resources. i have sponsored now five bills to lift california's obsolete ban on modern nuclear power per fresno wan a modern nuclear power plant. we cannot get it to them yet because the democrats, the liberals keep blocking it. so this has got to end. we've got to get out of the way and let people get back to work. the federal government is not going to bang -- bring prosperity by putting our children and children under mounting debt that we cannot possibly pay back. >> when i met with the fresno good government association the week before last, they brought to my attention something that is quite shocking. individuals word about water but also clean air and transportation have to travel to los angeles to meet the direcr of the regional division of the relevant federal agency. it is remarkable. as a result, the question was asked to me as the next senator, if that is to be, would you support giving us the chance to have administrators of these

vital programsight here in the central valley? with a 20% unemployment and eight of the counties that constitutes the greater san joaquin valley, when you deal with the burdens of creating opportunity, she should at the very least offer the people who are so burdened the chance to speak to the representatives of the federal government in their own county. that is an easy start. the more important, immediate start, of course, is water. do not forget the clean air and transportation -- transportation needs as well. >> a couple of lightning round questions now. should people on the no fly watch list be allowed to purchase a gun? >> know. >> yes, if they have not been convicted of a felony. toward ts fiorina? >> yes. >> my goodness.

>> that is why tom campbell has a poor rating from the national rifle association right there. >> the lightning round offers a chance to make short answers, but go right ahead. >> if a person is on the no fly list, at least you cansk until they are off the no fly list. i cannot believe what i'm hearing. but until they're off the no fly list and then exercise your second amendment right. that is not an infringement on anybody's second amendment rights and seems owen -- somewhat unusual to take the position. >> so a bureaucrat or eight until -- or an intelligence officer can abridge your rights without a trial. at a very interesting. >> i know people who have been on the no fly list, and it's been way too large. i know people who have been on it, who had been stopped, and if we permit anyone who is on that no fly list to have their second amendment rights taken away from them, that is a terrible problem. you're seeing an example of an issue where tom campbell is far

too close to barbara boxer from our taste. this is one of them. >> how about miranda rights for people who are accused of terrorist activity? should they have them or not? >> an individual who is an alien combatant ought to be sent to guantanamo. you should not be giving miranda rights to people who have valid, important information that can be used, and this is an incredible mistake the obama administration is making. the boys are they a citizen or not? if they are a citizen, yes, and if they are foreign combatant and picked up off the battlefield, i don't expect a private to be raised -- reading ama bin laden his miranda rights. or the christmas day bomber should not have parental rights given to him. he was not an american citizen. the new york times bomber -- the times square bomber is a citizen and so was appropriate

to give him his miranda rights. i personally hope if he is convicted, he is also accused of treason. we need to give the government more options to take someone who has demonstrated that ty are in league wh a foreign terrorist organization, to be tried in military tribunal and send to guantanamo. >> if you jumped in on mine, i'm quantitate 10 seconds to get the information -- you get the permission from the times square suspect before you give him the miranda rights. you reverse that and you're losing the opportunity to get valuable opportunity. >> we have to take a break right now. we will be rht back. we're back at the museum of tolerance in west los angeles with a three republican candidates vying for the seat currently heldy senator barbara boxer. we continue this debate th our colleague, john north. >> if one if you have a chance

to become u.s. senator, you will ve to deal with the issue of afghanistan, along this war we abandoned. they're more than 60,000 troops there now. more are on the way and more are likely to be called for free which you supportncreased deployment and use of force, the reason whye're supposedly in afghanistan? i believe it is mr. campbell. >> i do support the reason we are in afghanistan vergood judgment should be made on the advice of the military professionals, general mcchrystal in particular. and the president at least in large part appears to be following it. in addition to our presence in afghanistan, we have the relateand very consequential context next of pakistan and the harbors -- the areas of safe harbor that have been fered to terrorist cells in pakistan who are affecting the afghan situation as well. and there the issue has been brought up by the use of drones. the answer is yes, by all means. they are saving american lives.

they are going after the terrorist in the place where they are. we will come to an understanding with the pakistan government. has difficult and intractable is dealing with the pakistan situation is, it must be brought to the pakistani origin as well, and you solve both. >> when i work for president reagan as a specialist for foreign aairs, i had the opportunity to go to the tribal regions of pakistan. i've seen pakistan with my own eyes. i've visited the refugee camps that existed at the time. i'm very concerned about the current policy president is putting forward. it springs from thiwhole false notion that president were shortchanged the afghan war to go into a rock. to the contract -- to the contrary, afghanistan is not for robbery is a very different place. it is bigger and more mountainous. they are more literate. the land does not have natural

resources orn industrial base. its main chief means of survival is opium and foreign a. it is going to take as 100 years of blood and treasure to build a nation in afghanistan. ihink what we should do is focus on human intelligence, drone attacks, and intelligence operation special forces operations to continueo remorseless sleekly old leadership of those who would seek to harm us. -- remorselessly kill the leadership of those would seek to harm us. >> i think what assemblyman devore just said that is he does not support the military's recommendations in afghanistan. i certainly do. i think it is vital that we are successful in afghanistan and the nine terrorists a fake -- the nine terrorist a safe haven. i think it's good that president obama has stepped up drone attacks into afghanistan. i certainly support that he

finally took the recommendations of his generals. i am deeply concerned that he established an arbitrary deadline which we are all aware be seeing as having difficulty. i chaired the external advisory board for the central intelligence agency. i served on the intelligence business board. i know our military men and women and our intelligence services as well and they are all absolutely committed to being successful in afghanistan because they know how importunate is to deny terrorists a safe haven. i believe we now must do what is necessary to succeed there. that means we must follow the recommendations of very, very fine lears like general petreaus and mike stanley mcchrystal. >> mr. campbell, you feel that requiring americans to have health insurance is unconstitutional? >> i believe it is beyond the commerce power of the united states federal government. the difference is very important. an individual shall not be forced under the federal government's authority to carry

an insurance policy if the individual does not have all the elements that thfederal government has, if that person subject to aine, and if they have more elements than the federal government wants under this new law, they must payn excise tax of 40% othe additional value. that is accused -- an intrusion on individual liberty, on the st judgment that an individual or company might want to make about what policy ought to be for them. what can the federal government do and what the state governments can do is very clearly delineated in our constitution. the state or the people are the repository of all rights not specifically given to the federal government. that is our 10th amendment. it means a lot to me. i would vote against bills because they expanded the role of the federal government. and for those people who would say how can you soove this otherwise? individuals can be taken care of and should be. we could and should have taken

care of those pre-existing conditions and those too poor to afford their own health insurance. when you send that . . . months ago. carly fiorina signed it the day after it passed and tom campbell soup co signed a pledge. to go back to the previous question of what is going on in afghanistan, is important that we understand that the taliban and al qaeda does not present an existential threat to the united states. they do not have an industrial base. they do not have armies. they are terrorists. w because of the fact that afghanistan has no means of national support for a large army, where is t end game? are you proposing that we just pay and afghanistan until they develop a modern economy and a modern democracy? for heaven's sake, their constitution was drafted by the french as part of the nato mission ended in binges out

strong -- it envisions a strong central government which is like afghan culture and tradition. i've studied this issue. we need to kill our enemies. we do not need to build a modern nation state where one has not extended for 100 years. >> there are so many problems with this health care bill that we must repeal it. lest the star with the fac that it ought not -- it does not solve any of the problems that said it would solve. i battled breast cancer last year. that is why my hair looks a little strange. i lost the ball on the course of chemothera and it made me an involuntary expert on the health care system. the truth is that this health care bill increases theost of care. it increases the cost of health care insurance. it has increased our federal debt by $500 billion probably. president obama just established a deficit reduction commission. i was against the establishment of that commission because i think it is code for increasing taxes. but he did say let's put everything on the table.

mr. presint, barbara boxer -- put repeal of the health care on e table if you're serious about reducing the deficit. >> warren armstrong? >> mr. devore, many historians consider the killing of 1.5 million armenians by the ottoman emre shortly after world war i as the first genocide of the 20 century. how would you it buys the president regarding his next chaitman? >> i support the resolution and i've supported companion resolutions on the floor of the assembly in california. it was the first genocide of the last century, and perhaps not on coincidentally, at all hitler himself referred to it saying, who remembers the armenians? the fact that we have not had an accounting with the turkish government on this issue is one of those things that leaves open this chapter of history.

it is time that we have on modern accounting. if the current government says that they are not the direct descendant of the ottoman empire, then what did they have to worry about? why don't the a square of the account with history and knowledge the objective facts on the ground that a genocide occurred and then moved on? i think it is very important th we do this. >> of course it was genocide. it is tragedy that we're tied up in political not in washington, d.c. instead of able to speak the truth. i think it is yet another reason why people lose faith in their government, of course it was genocide. here we are in the museum of tolerance, allonderful place that calls on us to never forget. never forget those who were lost in the genocide, whether it is holocaust or whether it is what happened to the armenian people. and i must say, in this regard, and it may be the only time i

say it, but i agree 100% with what mr. devore just said. [laughter] [applause] >> in this museum, there is a reprentation of the armenian genocide. and that issbecause it did occur. and you must speak truth or you run the risk of it happening again. there was are many in genocide. there -- there was armed -- there was an armenian genocide. there were members might help prevent a recurrence. sadly there are other genocides, also rwanda, memories of those as well in this museum. we must continue to face the reality. there are evil people and that america is a good nation. we should never apologize for taking the step that we as a good nation stan and call evil when we see it. i was so disappointed when

president bill clinton refuse the word genocide -- refuse to work -- use the word genocide regarding rwanda, and he said that if we use the word, we will have to do something about it. >> we're going to go to some 32nd answers. >> to court to keep this in order, rig? >> we are going to try our best. we will give you an equal amount of time. >> my question has to do with iran. secretary gates apparently does not think that the sanctions or the administration policy is working very what needs to be done? how far do we need to go if the policy is a failure? >> of course theanctions are not working. it is obvious that what we're doing is not working. yesterday's or the day before we retreated to the display of our secretary of state repl -- revealing how many nuclear warheads we have in order to

demonstrate some sincerity about nuclear non-proliferation, and meanwhile, president of ahmadinejad as saying we don't care what anybody says. we're going to go ahead and build a nuclear weapon. we should and i've called on barbara boxer to do this for some time, reconcile the two bills and send them to the president immediately so that he can begin to enact sanctions on refined polar route -- refined petroleum so that we continue to cut off access to financial sources to the iranian revolutionary guard. we must be prepared to do what is necessary to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. >> in september 2007, israel bombed syria's nuclear site and destroyed their capability. in 1981, israel bombed iraq's capability. we must send this message now clearly that israel in its own defense -- all existential defense uses military force to defend the nuclear capability of

ron, the united states will stand with israel. sadly president obama is sending the act -- exactly the opposite. he is saying >> he's saying we'll give sanctions one more try as though sanctions will ever turn back from the plan to be the rejection of states. a map that has declared israel has no right to exist and at the holocaust has not happened. >> if it's israel's problem it's america's problem. in the pent a gone i did a classified war game that led to operation praying man this. it destroyed iran navy. i know a little bit about welding a big stick. about sanctions. they don't often work because business leaders like carly feareni kir couple vented them with like and offshore ready

gulf. she exsupported high-technical equipment. that's why we have to use force and covert needs to encourage the people from iran to rise up and throw off their leaders. >> we're very close to running out of time. we have time for 30 second closing remarks from each candidate. let's begin with mr. kim billion kim willable kimable federal government is expanding too much, the interest rates going to rise, inflation is. happen, and all because people in washington continue to run the printing presses. replace senatoble bara boxer, one of the biggest spending senators that congress has ever seen as an individual rating. the single most fiscally

irresponsible member of congress. thank you. i'm tom campbell and ask for your support. >> america is at a press of this right now. we are spending beyond our means to sustain it. all americans want is that we live within our means. we follow the constitution. unfortunately we have not been getting that from barbara box for 28 long years on capitol hill. this is the year that we can end her reign sending someone to washington, d.c. that understands that the federal government exists to secure our unalienable rights not to try to protect us from our own stupidity and greed. >> i have been fortunate to live the americ dream. my husband has lived the american dream and we worry now about whether our two granddaughters will have that chance. i've traveled all up and down the state and i've met people who like me have had enough. we have had enough of barbara

boxer. we've had enough of out of control government spending, out of control government taxing d out of control government regulating. we need to take the government back, make i work, and we can do that by marching with our blood and reducing and finally defeating barbara boxer in novemb. there is one candidate on the state's second defeat barbara boxer in november. she knows i i ask for your support 3 march with our vote for it take our government back. make it listen. make it work. >> we thank you, candidates, and we are at a time for you may applaud now. we like to take the league of women voters. the museum of tolerance and our sponsors, please be sure to vote on june 8. i thank you. ♪

he is introduced by congressman jerry moran. this is about half an hour. >> welcome to one of our most famous sites, the eisenhower presidential museum and library, and to our out of state and country guests, welcome to abilene, kansas. i am here as a member of congress and a ckansan, and son of a veteran of the war in europe, one of the benefactors of europe -- victory today. it is an honor to be with you to celebrate that anniversary. i do not have to tell moot of those here today, but often

enlighten my colleagues in washington, d.c., that there is something very special about communities in kansas. events serve as a good reminder to all of us at our way of life in kansas is worth preserving. it was here in the homes and churches and schools tha white -- dwight eisenhower develop a character that served as commander of our allied forces in europe and led to that victory in world war ii. our country is facing a different enemy -- al-qaeda -- with a similar goal of destroying our way of life. in these challenging times, our country has once again turned to a native of our state to lead the fight. it is my privilege to introduce the secretary of defense, dr. robert gates. he began his distinguished career in public service as an eagle scout in wichita, kansas,

where he was going and raised. i listened -- where he was born d raised. i listen to him when he was honored as kansan of the year. he closed with a memorable statement that says a lot about his values and the values we findn the communiques -- communities in our state. "my youth in kansas was rich with good and modest people. surrounded by such people, characr and integrity, kansas values, and kansas, sens begin the bedrock of my life -- kansas commonsense became the bedrock of my life, no matter how far i travel but braque -- traveled." he has traveled very far. he has had a 27 year career and

begin the direor of central intelligence in 1991 until993. he has been commissioned as an officer in the air force, has served on the boards of nonprofits and businesses, receive medals and awards, and served as president of texas a&m. in 2006, dr. gates was selected by president bush as the 22nd secretary of defense. president obama asked him to remain in 2008, making him the only secretary of defense in u.s. history who was asked to stay in that office by a newly- elected president. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce and welcome our speaker this afternoon, who was raised with kansas' commonsen commonsense. ladies and gentleman, secretary of defense robert gates. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you, congressman, for that kind introduction. thank you to the eisenhower library for the honor of being your speaker on this occasion, the 65th aiversary of the allied victory. i know there are a numbe of veterans from world war ii who are with us. we're grateful to you for what you achieved an sacrificed to make it- achieved and sacrificed to make it possible for us to gather today. [applause] i am pleased to be here for several reasons. it is always a treat to be someplace other than washington, d.c. -- the only place in the world you can see a prominent personalking down lover's lane

holding his own hand. [laughter] it is even better to return to my home state of kansas, a place of little pretense and ample common-sense. i am honored and humbled to be at this wonderful institution on this occasion and to be ofociated, and with the legacy ight d. eisenhower. this is my second visit to the library and museum. my first was with my sixth grade class from wichita, 54 years ago. with just under five decades in the corporate sector, i consider myself a person of few illusions and not that of unalloyed heroes. general eisenhower has been a source of wisdom and inspiration. he is one of my heroes. another is general george marshall, his partner in

command, whose portrait hangs behind my desk, too. eisenhower was a low-maintenance leader of simple tastes, modest man, and small entourages, in contrast to what happens in the upper levels of washington and other elite settings now. one article describes a visit by eisenhower to the front lines of the european theatre of operations. they noted there was no fanfare, no motorcycle escort, no owering banners, only a convoy of three cars. there was one for the president, one for the press, and one spare. he set up his modest trailer. despite the presence of an elegant and abandon chateau nearby, he maintained the symbol surrounding.

he was flummoxed by the pentagon. it is now referred to as the puzzle palace. soon after the war, he made a mistake of trying to find his office by himself and got very lost. "one had to give the building is grudging admiration. it had been defined to confuse any any that might infiltrates it -- any enemy that might infiltrate it." he was not alone in this. one woman rushed up to a pentagon guardas saying she was in labor and needed help to get to a hospital. the guard said, madam, you should not have come in here in that condition. she answered, i was not in this condition when i came in here. [laughter] the occasion that brings us together this afternoon is the 65th anniversary of the allied victory in europe.

it was an achievement that would not have been possible without ike's strategic vision and a remaable skill at managing the personalies of his top generals. one top historian said, eisenhower had to deal with as fractious and dysfunctional a group egomaniacs as anyone had .ver seen -- he was focused on to win the nazis and not each other -- on killg the nazis and not each other. i would like to discuss the approache took and the oices he made to secure what was called "the long peace" that followed." -- followed. his dresses kept us prosperous and free for nearly six decades -- his choices that as

prosperous and free for nearly six decades. theylso helped provide and pay for our national defense. president obama addressed the nation from west point, where he laid out the case for a new strategy to achieve our objectives in afghanistan and pakistan. [train whistli] i am accustomed to this. the union pacific runs right through the middle of the a&m campus. eisenhower spoke of the need to consider options. in light of the broader consideration, the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- this excerpt was panned for being insufficiently and browsing in a churchillian sense.

i believe he would ner approved -- he would have approved. [train whistling] faced with the pre-eminence security threat of his time -- the soviet union -- he was a strong warrior. he had no illuons about the nature of the soviet adversary, which he once called "global in scope, rose in purpose, and city is in method. -- insidious in method." no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. >> yet during his presidency. eisenhower resisted intervening in the middle east. this restraint wasn't just a

true soldier's hatred of war and all it's costs and horrors. it came in no small part from an understanding that each a super-power ouch such as united states relative to the rest of the world, did not have unlimited political, economic and military resources. expensed them in one area. a protracted area in one world. furthermore, eisenhower frank strongly believe anied nation could only be as militarily strong as it was economically dynamic and physically sound. he emitted the cost of large defense strategy maintained at a high level of readiness. --. this condition of an immense military establishment is new in the american experience.

we recognize the imperative need r this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications." he was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle bound, ris and state -- garrisoned state, strategically insolvent. he warned that we must not destroy from within what we are trying to defend from without. this had fueled his passionate belief that the u.s. should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not one penny more. with his prless credentials and standing, he was uniquely positioned to ask hard questions, make top was come and set firm limits -- make tough choices, and set firm limits. we could see how ruthless he could be when it came to forcing them until it -- forcing the

military estlishment to justify its programs and priorities. consider one account from march, 1956. eisenhower sat down with his top defense advisers to discuss the pentagon budget. it shows he became exasperated that, "no one ever comes up and says let's get rid of something ." the observed that it took the army 60 years to get rid of horses -- he then observed that it took the army's 60 years to get rid of forces. i questioned why t army should have a 1500-mile ballistic missile program since, the army does not have the equipment to see where they are hitting. he told his senior defense team that he wanted the pentagon cut down to "a spartan basis," lamenting that people he had known all of his life were asking for more and more. "i say the patriot today is the fellow who can do the job with less money."

whenever he was asked to fund something, his response usually took the form of a question -- where is the money going to come from and what will you cut in its place? the otheruestion was about priorities. he said it was troubled by the tendency to pilot program on top of a program to meet every possible contingency. looking back from today, what a fine so compelling and instructive -- what i find so compelling and instructive is that really choices were made, parties were set, and limits were enforced -- really tough choices were made, priorities were set, and limits were enforced. the attacks the september, 2001, opened a gusher of this defense spending -- of defense spending

which has nearly doubled, not accounting for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. this brings us to the choices we have today as a country. given ourifficult economic circumstances and powerless this will condition, military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer and harsher scrutiny. the gusher will stay off for a good period of time. on one level, it is a simple matter of math. the fact that we're in a war and facing an uncertain world, we must sustain the current military force structure. this typically requires regular growth in the defense budget, ranging from 2% to 3% above inflation. in this year's budget request, the defense department asked for and hopes to receive just under 2%.

it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth rates necessary to sustain our current force structure. some argue that the answer is simply to press harder for a bigger overall budget. they point o that defense spending to date is a function of gross domestic product, roughly 4.5%, relatively small in historical terms during a time of war. they would be right. i do not hesitate to make thatpoint ding my trips -- make that poi during my trips to capitol hill. we face certain economic and fiscal realities. we need to overcome steep, institutional, pitical institutions and challenges. anyone oside of the five walls of the pentagon -- many of those are outside of the five walls of

the pentagon. they had asked to cease funding for certain equipment. there are heavy up-front costs -- about $3 billion. multiple studies show the military has ample airlift capacity to meet all current and feasible future needs. the leadership of the air force is clear -- they do not need an cannot afford more c-17's. correspondingly, the air force, marines, and 80 do not want the second f- -- and navy do not want the second f-35 engines. yet a battle is underway to prevent them from putting these back in in the next few years. i strongly recommend a veto if either of these items is included in the budget

legislation next year. leave aside the sacred obligation we have to america's wounded warriors, but health care costs are eating the department alive. it increased from $19 billion when decade ago to roughly $50 billion, about the same but it of the foreign affairs budget for the department of state -- about the same budget of the of foreign affairs but it -- of the foreign affairs budget for the department of state. many wking-age military retirees, who are earning a full-time salaries on top of their full military pensions, aropting for tricare, even though they could get health coverage through their employer, with the taxpayer picking up the tab. the department has attempted modest increases in premiums and copays, to help bring costs under control. it has been that with a furious response from the congress and

from veterans. the proposals routinely die an ignominious death. the resistance to dealing with it stems from an admirable sentiment -- to take good care of our troops, their families, and veterans, especiallyhose who sacrificed and suffered on the battlefield. they must routinely add 0.5% pay raises. the all-volunteer force, which has been a brilliant success in terms of performance, is a group that is older, more likely to have spouses and children, and costlier to retain, recruit, house, and care for than the draft of young single men. those are the political and demographic realities that we face. the limit what can be saved and where -- they limit what cane

saved and where. the department of defense can approach to america's elected representatives and ask for creases every year, until we have done evythingossible to make every dollar count. unless there is real reform in the way the art and the defense does its business and spends taxpayer dollars -- in the way the department of defense does its business and spends taxpayer dollars. we're focused on permit programs to make sure we're buying things in the right quantities. -- on procurement programs to make sure we are buying things in the right quantities. we need to meet our real world needs. about $330 billion were terminated. we also begin to overhaul the processes for acquisition and contracting. earlier this week, i observed the physical realities will preclude the navy from reaching

its goal of 330 ships, if each is over budget and costillions of dollars. without exercising real diligence, if nature takes its course, major weapons programs will devolve into pursuing the limits of what technologyill bear, without regards to what our real world enemy can do and regards to cost. has led to $20 million howitzers, $2 billion bombers, and $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers. for example, the navy wanted 32 of the next-generation destroyer. because of increasing costs, we will three. -- will build three. the air force wanted more than 200, we built 20.

the changes we have made in the procurement are renamed -- arena represent a start. more is needed. the defense of art must take a ha look at every aspect of how would is orgized -- the defense department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it does business. is this respectful of the american taxpayer at time of economic and fiscal distress? is this activity or arrangement the best use of limited dollars, given the pressing needs we have to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, and invest in our abilities to deal with future threats? no real progress towards savings is possible without reforming our budgeting practices and assumptions. too often, but it's are divvied up eachear as a straight-line -- budgets are divvied up each

year as a straight-line projection of the year before unlikely -- they are very rarely -- of the year before. they are very rarely reexamined. consider the broad category that encompasses about $200 billion worth of the daily activities of the military -- from flight training to mowing the grass. over the last decade, expenses have about doubled, th large increases in the administrative and infrastructure support. the department's spending on contract services has grown by some $23 billion. the one area of real decline in overhead is the area where we actually need it -- full-time contract and professionals, ose numbers plunged from 26,000 to about 9000. we ended up with contractors

supervising other contractors, with predictable results. another category ripe for scrutiny should be our overhead. all the activity and bureaucracy that supports the military mission. according to one estimate, overhead, broadly defined, makes up about 40% of the department's budget. militarye 1990's, the saw deep cuts in overall force structure. the army was cut by nearly 40%. the reduction in flag offices, generals, admirals, what abouthalf that. the department's -- was about half that. the department's number of senior executives grew during that's peod. almost -- that same period. almost a decade ago, the defense reason -- the defense bod estimated that there is a gap between the an action officer that is as high as 30 layers.

they have stratton's -- that of latin and streamlined the upper echelon -- they have flattened and streamline the upper echelon -- streamlined the upper echelon. there were steep cuts in our forces in europe. we have 40 generals, admirals, or civilian equivalents, yet we sold our allies over the bloat in nato -- we scold our allies over the globe in nato. -- the bloat in nato. a request has to go through five headquarters to be validated and dealt with. >> and this during an era where more and more responsibility including decisions with strategic consequences is being exercised by young captains and

colonels on the battle field. a telling example to tell you how difficult it is to make each minor adjustments. the flag officer requirements of the service. the staff identified 37 positions out of reserve d soldiers that could be reasonably reduced to a lower rank. not one was. how many are in the business of reporting or to preserving other headquarters as apposed to overseeing - how many officers ce downgraded? assiant secretaries become deputy assistant secretaries. it would create a more effective and less costly organization. how many commands or organizations are conducting

repetitive or overlapping functions? how many of them could be combined or eliminated altogether? we have to be mindful of the iron law of bureaucracies. the definition of is and to work expands proportionately with the security of the person in charge and the quantity of time and staff available. we have 50-page powerpoint briefings as a result. before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged gaps, we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider, real-world context. should we be up in arms over a tempary, projected shortfall of fighters and disorders wn we possess more than 3200 tactical aircraft?

does the number of warships we have put america at risk? . . >> therefore, as the defense departme begins the process of preparing next year's fiscal 2012 budget requests, i am directing the military

services and regional and functional command to take a hard, unsparing look on how they operate in substance and style alike. the goal is to cut overhead costs -- and how they operate. we want to convert sufficient tail to two to provide 2% growth, have the resrces needed in a time of war, and make investments into an uncertain future. simply taking a few percentage point off the top of everything on a one time basis will not do. these savings mus stem from the areas that can be sustained and added to from -- over time. what is required going forward is not more study. nor do we need more legislation. it is not a great mystery what needs to change. what it takes is a great political will and willingness,

as eisenhower possess, to make hard choices, traces the well fiscally empower people -- choices that will fiscally empower people both inside the pentagon and out. i am not the first person to make this case or in this effort. a person employed in a redundant task is one who could be fighting terrorism or nuclear proliferation. secretary crumbs fell said that on september 10th, two dozen 1 -- secretary rumsfeld said that on september 10th, 2001. what might have been considered a noble or worthy endeavor in the past is now a path that can no longer be denied or postponed. it is a path, in the final analysis, to defend the security, prosperity and freedom of the american people in a

complex and dangerous new century. it is a calling to uphold the spirit of sacrifice of the men whose service and triumphs we honor today, and it is a mission or the of theon of kansas to lead our forces to victory 65 years ago, and his legacy continues to sustain and protect us today. mouches thank you. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> too day in washington your mall. jake coleman and dennis takaha h takahashi kelso. they'll talk bank real labss and adrian moore from the reason foundation looks at parallels

between california and greece. "washington journal" live here on c-span. >> president's got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. and i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry. i said thank you mr. president. >> learn more through the eyes officer of there in c-span's latest book the supreme court. pages of history photo and interviews with all the justices active and retired. supreme court available in hard cover and also as ane-book. according to multiple news sources u.s. solicitor will be

the nominee to replace justice john paul stephens that's retiring this summer. 50 years old, born in new york. a graduate of princeton, oxford and harvard universities and became the first dean of harvard law school. nominateed by obama in january of 2009. the former supreme court announces meant expected as early as monday morning will carry that information live on c-span.org. president barack obama gave his second commence meant speech of to the graduating class of hampton university. this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you, hampton. thank you class of 2010.

please have a seat. i love you back. that is why i am here. i love you guys. good morning, everybody. to all of the mothers in the house, as somebody who is surrounded by women in the white house, grew up surroundedy women, let me take a moment just to sit thank you. --o say thank you for all that you put up with each and every day. we are so grateful to you, and

we are glad to have such a beautiful day when we celebrate our mothers. thank you for allowing us to share this special occasion. for all of the dignitaries that are here, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. before we get started, i just want to say that the battle of the real hu will be taking place in washington this year. we know that i am not going to take sides. my understanding is depth -- my understanding is that it has been 30 years since the pirates lost. [applause] as one hampton alumni on my staff put it, at the last time

it happened, the fujis were still together. [laughter] let me also say a word about presidents harding, the man who leads hampton blue. in a single generation, this has transformed from a small black college to a world-class research institution. that transformation has come through the efforts of many people, but it has come through president harvey's efforts in particular. i want to commend him for his outstanding leadership. [applause] most of all, i want to

congratulate all of you, the class of 2010. i gather that none of you walked across the circle. you did? ok. you know, we meet here today, as graduating plazas have met for generations, n far from where it all began, by that old oak tree on emancipation and drive -- emancipation drive. there, beneath its branches, about 20 students gathered on

september 28th 1854, taught by free citizens in defiance of a virginia law. the students were freed slaves from nearby plantations who had fled and were seeking asylum. the union and general sought to enshrine a legacy of a word -- of learning. hampton normal and t agricultural institute was founded here. the story is no doubt familiar to many of you, but it is worth reflecting on why it happened, why so many people went to such trouble to found hampton and all of our historical black colleges and universities. the founders of these institutions new, of course,

that inequality was persistent. they were not naive. they recogzed that barriers in our laws would not vanish overnight. but they also recognized a larger truth, a distinctly american truth. they've recognized that the right education might allow those barriers to be overcome, might allow or our god-given potential to be fulfilled. they recognize that education means emancipation. it recognized that education is how america and its people might fulfill its promise. that recognition, that truth,

that education can fortified us, allow us to bring down barriers and to meet any test, is reflected again and again throughout our history. in the midst of civil war, we set aside grants for colleges like hampton to train up farmers and industrialists the skills for a new generation. rebuilt and broadened our great middle class. we set study centers to help graduate understand and address the threat of a nuclear age. educations what has always allowed us to et the challenges of a changing world. that has never been more true thant is today. this class is graduating at the

time of great difficulty for america and for the world. you are entering a job market in an era of heightened international competition with an economy that is still abeconomy rebounding from the worst world crisis since the great depression. your accepting your degrees as america still wages two wars. wars that many in your generation have been fighting. meanwhile, your coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and arguments. some don't rank that hi. on hi the truth monitor. number of which i know how to work. information become as distraction. rmation becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form

of entertainment, rather than a tool of an apartment, rather than a means of ient -- of emancipation. all of this is putting pressure on you, our country, on our democracy. this is a time of change like few others in our history. we cannot stop these changes. but we can channel them. we can ship them. we can come at them. and education is wha will allow us to do so. it will fortify you, as it did earlier generations, to meet the test of your own time. first and foremost, your education can afford to buy you against the uncertainties of the 21st century economy. in the 19th century, people

could get by with a few basic skills. they could get them at the school like hampton or pick them up along the way. as long as you were willing to work, for much of the 20th century a high-school diploma was a way to a solid middle- class existence. that is no longer the case. new jobs today often require at least a bachelor's degree. that degree is even more important in times like these. the unemployment rate for folks who have never gone to college is over twice as high as for folks with a college degree or more. the good news is, you are already ahead of the curve. the check you or your parent wrote to hampton will pay off. you are in a strongosition to out compete workers around the world, but i do not have to tell you that too many folks at home

are not as well prepared. too many people just like you are not as well prepared by any number of different yardsticks. african-americans are being outperform by their white classmates, as are hispanic americans. students in well off areas are outperforming students in the or or rural communities, no matter what their skin color. globally, american students are ranked 10th compared to global schools. all of us have a responsibility as americans to change. we must offer every single child in this country and education that will make them competitive in our new economy. that is our obligation as a

nation. [applause] but i have to say, class of 2010, all of you have a separate responsibility. be role models for your brothers and sisters. the mentors in your community. when that time comes to pass the education valued down at to your children, a sense of personal responsibility and self-respect, a work ethic, and an ambition that made it possible for you to be here today. allowing you to compete in the obal economy is the first with your education can prepare you, but it can also allow you to compete as citizens. so many voices are clamoring for

attention on blogs and talk radio that it can be difficult to sift through it and know what to believe, know who is telling the truth and to is not. peop say some of the craziest things in a completely same fashion. i have had some experience with that. fortunately, you will be well- positioned to aggregate the truth. education has honed your research abilities, sharpen your analytical powers, and giving you a better understanding of the world. those skills will come in hand. the goal is always to teach us something more. over the past four years you have argued both sides of the debate. you have to read studied history. you have discovered interest you did not know you had.

you make friends who did not grow up the same way you did. you try things you have never done before, including some things we will not talk about in front of your parents. [laughter] all of this, i hope, has had the effect of opening your mind, of helping you to understand what it is like to walk in somebody else's shoes. now that your mind has been opened, you need to keep it that way. it will be up to you to open mind that remain closed as you go along the way. that is the elemental test of any democracy, whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, work with each other, and find a way forward together. i have one further observation. just as your education can forth by you, it can also fortify our nation. -- fortify you, it can also

fortify our nation. we must be able to compete not just in our boardrooms, but in our classrooms, in our schools, and in universities like cotton. -- like hampton. what is at stake isore than our ability to out compete other nations, it is our ality to ma democracy work in our own nation. years after he left office, decades after he signed the declaration of independence, thomas jefferson satown about 2 hour drive from here and wrote a letter to a long time legislature urging him to do more for ecation. give one principal reason -- he gave one principle reason.

"if the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." jefferson recognize, like the rest of that gifted generation, that in the long run, america's improbable experiment would not work if its citizens or uninformed, apathetic, if they stepped back and left democracy to those that did not have the best interests of all the people at heart. it could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfill the obligations of citizenship. the success of their experiment depended upon the participation of its people, participation of americans like all of you.

participations of all those who had ever thought arafat. i had the great honor -- or fought for america. i had the privilege last week of honoring a civil rights leader. she passed away at the age of 98. one of the speakers ater memorial was a nephew who was 88. i said, that is a sign of a full life, when your nephew is 88. she had been on the firing line for every fight, from lynching to desegregation, from the battle for health care reform.

she w with eleanor roosevelt, and she was with michelle obama. she lived a singular life, one of the gia upon his shoulders i stand. but she started out juslike you. she understood that to make something of herself, she needed a college degree. so she applied to barnard in.lege, and she got a but when she showed up, they discovered she was not quite as they had believed -- white, as they had believed. they had already given their two spots for african americans to other individuals.

and dorothy was not discouraged. she was not deterred. with the acceptance letter in hand, she marched down to new york university and said, "let me in." she was admitted right away. i want all o you to think about this. there have probay been hard exams.nd hard you have felt put upon. undoubtey, you will face other challenges. but i want you to think about a black woman in 1929 refusing to be died the dream of a college education, refusing to be denied her rights, refusing to be denied her dignity, refusing to

be denied her place in america, a piece of the american promise, refusing to let any barriers of injustice or ignorance or inequality or unfairness stand in her way. that refusal to except a lesser fate, that insistence on a better life, that ultimately is the secret not only upon of -- not only of african american survival and success, it is the secret of american survival and success. so yes, an education can fortified as to beat the test of our economy, but what ultimately makes us americans, quintessentially american, is something that cannot be taught

, stubborn insistence on pursuing our dreams. it is the same insistence that led a man to overthrow an empire, that freed the slaves, the founded schools like hampton, that led people to breathe fire hoses and bil clubs -- brave fire hoses and billy clubs, that led a generation to toil away quietly without complaint in the hopes of a better life for their children and grandchildren. that is what makes us who we are. a dream of brighter days ahead, faith in things not seen, a belief that here in this country, we are the authors of

our own destiny. that is what hampton is all about. it now falls to you, class of 2010, to write the next great chapter in america's story, to meet theest of your own time, and to take up the ongoing work ofhe killing the promise. i am looking forward to watching it. -- to take up the ongoing work of fulfilling that promise. i am looking forward to watching it. thank you, and god ess america. [applause] >> tonight a discussion on broadcast frequencies. our guests will be members o