but i do not question the solicitor general's role with that -- >> i do not question the solicitor general's role with that. i was wondering about the decision not to become involved in some appeals when the government wins the case. >> one would want to rest there. >> i understand that. seen some inconsistencies -- we have seen some inconsistencies. >> i would love to hear some examples of that. >> mr. perrelli, i notice that seemed to quiet down with that blackberry. >> children mimic their parents. >> one of the things that was troubling to me in the last few

years was what happened to an office in minnesota. it was under republicans and democrats. some was put in there without the experience to run it. general mukasey fix it when he got in. it is now back on track. it was shocking to me to see how quickly that office deteriorated. i wanted to say how much i appreciated the decisions of the administration to keep on some of the appointees. it would have been a bad idea to throw out these u.s. attorney's. what would you do with attorney general holder to improve morale >> it is an important question. the experience of working through the transition demonstrated the experience and talent of the justice department. they are extraordinary public

servants at every level. there have been concerns. the inspector general's reports have showed politicization. it has affected the morale. it starts from the top. the attorney-general and myself need to speak and make clear from the top down what the mission of the department is. we need to energize that mission and a short career attorneys that partisanship -- and assure career attorneys that partisanship will not be accepted. we need to know what is working in what is not and do our best to improve -- and what is not and do our best to improve. it may be a lengthy process. there is such reservoir of experience that i believe we can accomplish it. >> it is important how the department of justice works with local and county attorneys

across the country. i saw some breakdown of that. i -- it has always been my view that people do not care who prosecutes the case, whether it is a state or u.s. attorney. can you talk about how he would plan the justice department -- how you would plan the justice department out reached others? -- outreach to others? >> we have to pull together to make our communities as safe as we can. rebuilding these relationships will be important going forward. we have had law enforcement officials expressed their concern about not having been consulted about certain issues. with respect to the role of the associate attorney general, the primary area is going to be in the grant-making progress, technical assistance, and training for state and local officials. i hope to see a robust and in the dialogue with state and

local -- and ongoing dialogue with state and local officials. if you spend time talking and working with them in the individual communities, you can find the best solutions. >> i am out of time. i hope you'll consider to doebele areas -- two areas -- how difficult it is to take on some of these cases and the fraud area. it is very difficult for a small police department to take these on. i hope you will look at that in the future. >> i will. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. kagan, can you read and give me your thoughts on this article? he is one of the preeminent solicitors general who served under ronald reagan.

he describes, from his perspective, the unique and important role as steward of the office of s.g. i would like to hear your take on that description of what a good s.g. would be. >> if i may? one of your staff said you had an interest in that article. i did read it. i completely agree with you. i think it is a very thoughtful and powerful article about the s.g.'s role. i might have a quibble here and there, but i agree with all of the main points. >> it is a bit of a template for how a solicitor general approach is what cases to take and how to proceed. i would like to discuss that with you. thank you for that. i want to follow up on what senator coburn was saying about experience.

i like to talk to my grandchildren about the difference between intelligence and wisdom,; for my part -- wisdom. from my perspective, wisdom is a combination of wisdom, learning, and experience, which also produces knowledge. i also encourage them to get out learning and experience. while it is true that because of your stellar academic background, you bring a great deal to the court as a litigant, it is also true that there is much to begin by the experience of participating in a lot of arguments before appellate courts. you learn by doing. you learn how to be better than your opponent. you are always facing an experienced litigator who has practiced before the court on the other side. there is an advocacy ability

that comes, not just from academic knowledge, but by doing it. you learned through trial and error what works and what does not. i suggest for the position of s.g., you learn what arguments can be effective and which ones cannot, even which case you might want to take and not take, relatives of the possibility of winning. theoretical and academic knowledge, while import andant, speaking,ood public they are no substitute for having done litigation in the arena where you have to think quickly and where your past experience can guide you. as compared to someone without the experience -- someone without these is less suited to the desertion -- position.

i would commend to use some degree of humility when you face some very experienced litigators who know the ins and outs of the arguments, because he or she has done it a lot of times before. i'm not going to get into your background. the committee is well aware of that. you can see that this does not consist of litigation experience. i am really concerned about this. i appreciate your academic learning. i think i am a fairly smart lawyer, trained in the law, but i do not think it would be the best candidate for a top position in the top law school in the country. that is an analogy i appreciate your to speak -- could you speak to that? am i completely agree with you on the necessity of wisdom and -- >> i completely agree with you on the necessity of wisdom

and judgment, along with book learning. it is true for the s.g. i hope i would not just bring book learning or the studies i have made of law, but a kind of wisdom and judgment, a kind of understanding of how to separate the truly important from the spurious. i hope that you will look at some of the letters that people have written about me. in my current job and other places, i hope that i have demonstrated that kind of judgment, as opposed to just to book learning. i would say to you, senator, i am in complete sympathy with what you said about humility. i like to think that one of the good things about me is that i know what i do not know. i figure out how to learn it when i need to. this is one of those things

where i am going to make a very intensive study of what i might be missing when i come to the job, if you see fit to confirm me, and to talk to a lot of people in and outside of the office to try to figure out how to fill any gaps. when you think about a job like the s.g., anybody as some gaps -- has some gaps. some persons might not have the deep knowledge of the law. what you have to do is try to figure out what you do not know. >> i appreciate that. the greatest knowledgeable surgeon still have to get those figures working to do the right kind of sewing. there is a difference between a

55-minute lecture and being constantly interrupted by the court, to where you're wonderful presentation get sliced down into five coherent things. practice enables you to do that. let me ask you about one other matter. this relates to to an earlier case that was discussed. -- this relates to an earlier case that was discussed. in the brief, the court itself said it represented are rather cramped interpretation of the law. it was not very kind to the interpretation in the brief. if you have been solicitor general when that case came to the court, would you have defended the statute? would you have interpreted our universities -- it to our universities against military recruiters? >> i absolutely would have.

the answer is clear. the third circuit held the statute unconstitutional. that was not the ground on which we argued. the third circuit did not go. there is a clear obligation on the part of the solicitor general to defend the statute in that circumstance, unless there is no reasonable basis to argue for the statute. i feel comfortable in this case, because it is a historic case. i know the case and that acts. i know the litigating posture of the case. i feel comfortable. there was a reasonable basis. the supreme court ruled 9 to zero. i would have defended that statute and that it and exactly the way that senator feingold noted they did with the other law. >> i would appreciate the chance to visit privately for a little bit. >> let me just put into the record -- it is appropriate --

letter of endorsement from the solicitor general from 1985 to 2009 in support of dean kagan. they say they're confident that you bring distinction to the office, continue its highest traditions, be a forceful advocate before the supreme court. alain kagen would bring to position abroad -- in the kagen will do ankagena kagan excellent job. to advance the best interests and as -- she will advance the best interests. her brilliant intellect will be respected by the justices. her candor will maker and especially of effective advocates -- will make her an especially effective advocate. >> thank you very much. welcome and congratulations. miss kagan, you have a very

special event here as the first woman. double congratulations. in response to a prior question, if it is not broke, do not fix it. i would like to give you one instance where i believe it was. that was in the case of massachusetts versus the epa, where california and a group of nonprofits sued the epa for failing to regulate greed as gas emissions that cause global warming -- regulate greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming they could not prove that -- global warming. they could not prove that. the supreme court disagreed. it found that the emissions could cause changes that would directly affect the states and their citizens. this is one instance where a

very bad decision was made. do you believe it was wrong? how would you decide these issues? >> you asked a question that i do think goes to the rule of the solicitor general's office. the solicitor general's office was representing the position of the agencies involved. whether it was right or wrong was more a matter of whether the agency has decided -- had decided. role wasitor general rul's to defend executive actions to the best of her ability. if there is regulation or policy or practice that the as a branch has set forward, or any particular agency -- that the executive branch has set for, or any particular agency, the thing to do is to vigorously defend that policy or practice. without knowing all of the ins and outs of the communications

between the solicitors general and the epa, i suspect that is the decision the solicitor general made. >> there are many of us, i happen to be one, that believes that the epa was very politicized in the past administration. this is just one example. essentially, what you are saying is, whatever the agencies what, the agencies would get, in terms of a determination of standing. is that correct? >> the perception is, just like it was a notion is that the solicitor general's office defends statutes -- just like it is the perception that the solicitor general's office defense statutes -- we will do that to the best of our ability. >> let me switch topics and ask you if you're familiar with the bill that we spent a great deal of time on in the last session -- the foreign intelligence surveillance act?

>> i am generally familiar with it. >> you mentioned the jackson formula from youngstown. as you know, with this program, the president saw to go outside the law and did in fact do so. that program is now totally under the foreign intelligence surveillance court. however, during this time, we were reviewing the foreign intelligence surveillance act and we strengthened, dramatically, the expressivity sections -- expressivity sections of that act -- exclusivity sections of that act. president carter called it bed governancexclusive to of ance.ol of governme

we strengthened it additionally in this latest amended act, which is now law. have you reviewed that? do you believe that the exclusivity provisions are such that they are compelling and therefore the president cannot go around this law and illegally collect for an intelligence -- foreign intelligence? >> i have not looked at it for those precise purposes. i would echo dean kagan. were congress has spoken directly, whatever authority the president has is at his lowest ebb.

the state my congress would be an extremely powerful statement in terms of what the authority of the executive branch is. >> i could not say anything more than that. >> ok. have you had the opportunity to review the geneva convention? >> generally, senator. >> with respect the laws of war, which essentially cover the detention of an enemy combatant for the duration of the conflict? i have had cause to review that. >> do you believe they are sufficient to detain an individual who was found to be an enemy combatant until the end of the conflict? >> i think i would want to consult further with experts. the description from your

question sounds similar to the supreme court decision in another case. i am uncertain of the potential exceptions or nuances. that was in part what the majority of the court held in that case, to the best of my recollection. >> i think it is going to be a fundamental question as we consider the plans for detainees at guantanamo being closed. what do you do with people who might not be able to be tried, but are judged through a proper, due process panel, to be a danger to national security and/or enemy combatants? can they continue to be held without trial?

it is my understanding that all laws of war permit this. this is an asymmetric war. i was curious whether you had any view on that. clearly, you do not. >> as i indicated, understanding is that is indeed what the case held -- my understanding is that is indeed what that case held. the president has made it clear that he is keeping the country safe -- keeping the country say it is his first priority. >> thank you. -- keeping the country safe is his first priority. >> thank you. >> adding disney's to be discussed openly -- i think this needs to be discussed openly. under criminal law, there is no process to hold someone without trial indefinitely. >> i do agree. >> if you had a statute that

would allow someone to be held forever without a trial, that would no longer be criminal law? >> that seems right. >> do believe we are at 4? >> i do, senator. -- do you believe we are at war? >> i do, senator. >> do you believe he is your boss? i would think he was a good boss. i asked him if he thought we were at war. he said, i do not think there is any question but that we are at war. our nation did not realize that we are at war -- were at war when we were. when i look back at some of those bombings, i think we should have realized that we were at war, not have waited until september 11, 2001, to make that determination. is it easy to agree? >> yes. >> where is the battlefield?

he gave what i thought was -0- if you are trying to explain to a civics class about the battlefield in this war, what would it be? he said the battlefield is in afghanistan and that there are battlefields potentially in our nation -- cyber-battlefields that we're going to have to engage. there is also a battlefield with regard to the hearts and minds of the people in the islamic world. we ought to conduct ourselves in a way that we can win that battle, so that people who might otherwise be well-intentioned but did not end up on the wrong side. do you agree? i certainly do, too. i thought he was speaking about the moral high ground.

in this war, there is a moral high ground that we have to maintain. we of lost it at times. we have to remember -- we have lost it at times. we have to remember that we're at war. if our intelligence agency should capture someone in the philippines, would you consider that person part of the battlefield, even though we are in the philippines, if it were involved in the al-qaeda activity? the attorney general said he would. do you agree? >> i do. >> under the law of armed conflict, as i understand it, under the geneva convention, the article says there is a dispute about status and what you're entitled to -- you're entitled to an independent and neutral decision maker. in most wars, that can be a battlefield determination by a single officer. because this is a war without end, that will not end with a

ceremonial or defined and, i am all for giving more due process -- i think she's making an important point. you cannot detain someone indefinitely under criminal law. they have to have a trial. under military law, if you're part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go and go back to the war. do you agree? >> i think it makes sense and i think you are correct that is all. -- is the law. >> america needs to be prepared for people being detained as enemy combatants, not criminals. there will be a process to determine whether or not they should be let go, based on the view that we are at war. it would be foolish to release somebody from captivity that is a committed warrior to our nation's destruction.

the public we have to make, would you agree, is that the determination -- the point that we have to make is that the determination has to be transparent and have substantial due process, and shoulddhave an independent judiciary involved. >> i agree. >> we can tell the world that this person is being held off the battlefield because there is a process that led to that determination with an independent judiciary involved. do you think that is important? >> i do. >> i look forward to working with you and this administration has come -- needs to come up with a process to let the world know that no one is being arbitrarily held based on suspicion or in motion, but based on evidence and a legal process -- or emotion, but

based on evidence and a legal process. some of them may be held for the rest of their lives, based on our process. do not join al qaeda -- not only does the corrupt your life and your religion -- you could wind up getting killed or dying in jail. mr. perrelli, one of the things i have been working on without whole lot of success is trying to protect our intellectual property. i come from a manufacturing state. there are people on this committee who come from similar states. we have the ability to innovate. but that in addition is routinely stolen in -- that innovation is routinely stolen in other places. we have sufficient laws to protect intellectual property in the global economy -- do we have

sufficient laws to protect intellectual property in the global economy? if not, what can we do better? >> by identifying the problem, whatever mechanisms we have did not seem to be addressing it. as you indicate, there are concerns and problems in a number of foreign countries with respect to theft of intellectual property. through the transition process, i heard from members of both chambers about the need to ensure that there is an intellectual property passport to appoint people who are focused on this -- i know this committee was one of the sources of the bill that created a broader intellectual property position throughout the administration. we hope to focus on these issues. >> thank you. i think you are an excellent choice and you will do a good job for the country. i look forward to supporting you. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse.

>> we pass legislation recently that would set up an intellectual prosody -- property czar in the white house. implementation has yet to be accomplished, but we hope that will be a priority for you. i could not agree more with senator graham. i want to recognize and appreciate the solicitor general who is here and has done such great service to the country. i am also delighted to see jack goldsmith here. you shared such an important window into a truly extraordinary moment in the department of justice's history. my question for both of you as to do with the department itself as an institution. -- has to do with the department itself as an institution.

you'll be the first new a ministration to inherit that bleak administration -- that bleak -- you will be the first new administration to inherit that bleak department. i understand from your testimony that you're well-positioned for that. you talked about your father's work for the department. you describe your revenants -- reverence for the department. you talked about your clerkship for justice marshall and his pride in having served as solicitor general, and what you call that religion and humbling -- but thrilling -- the rolling and tumbling -- thrilling and humbling responsibility. i want to hear your assurances that your first priority will be to defend the department of justice as an institution, upon

which americans can rely for competence, honesty, and integrity. .

>> we have heard of applicants being cast -- being asked why they want to serve george bush? we had amassed about their political background, people that had associations that were deemed consistent with democratic or progressive or liberal views knocked out of consideration for career positions. the danger of all of that is that, as a result, people's first priority is to a party and ideology, they have been allowed to infiltrate the department. they did not intend to and will not follow the traditions of independence, competence, integrity. but they are in now. although in many respects, they do not deserve it -- and they

did not come through a civil service process and now enjoy the benefits of that civil service process. some people, i am sure, are as qualified as anybody else and is keen to do the right thing. just the way that i think everybody does. but to the extent that there are people that have infiltrated themselves to the malls for a particular party or advocates for a particular ideology, what mechanisms to you have in place to protect the people that count on their judgment in particular cases to be protected against that? >> i think it is an important question, and there is no question on a forward looking basis that we have to do everything possible to ensure that never again, there are partisan criteria used in this selection of career attorneys or

staff in any way, and that includes promotion decisions as well as decisions about hiring. having served in the department, i understand the tremendous an incredible power of standing up and saying they represent the united states, and the extraordinarily high standards that we need to measure attorneys at the department of justice. my view is that we need to make sure that everyone who was working at the department is one with the mission, it to the extent that there is one his first priority may be something to other than the mission of the department of justice, we will learn about that because their performance will demonstrate to us that they're working on something else and focused on something else than the needs and interests of the united states. >> you're completely confident that the existing performance

evaluation and review process is adequate to the task of defending it against people who may have been pulled traded it for partisan purposes? >> i can't say i am completely confident, it is something i want to look at. but i think my view is that going forward, we need to evaluate people based on their performance and their performance with respect to the mission because in the past, that is why we have had a problem. >> i hope that that is the case. i am prepared to accept that it may be the case, but i am not convinced of that. i want to register that as a remaining open question. i am delighted that you both are candidates for these offices, i look forward to working with you, and i appreciate very much that you have taken this step to serve in these positions. the hassle and the criticism,

the hours are all somewhat different than what you experience at different times in your past. there is nothing quite like the responsibility and the honor. i wish you well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have great respect for both of you, and i appreciate the fact you're willing to give your time the public service. it means a lot to me. you both have excellent academic credentials. you have done a terrific job at harvard, there is no question about it. there are a number of people that i consider close friends, and they have weighed in in your favor from time to time with me. you're both excellent lawyers and excellence dollars. let me just raise the case with you that i it raised with david

ogden last week. it is entitled knox vs. united states. protecting children is one of the highest matters of importance. but because we intend to weaken enforcement of child pornography statute, it was first made by the solicitor general who was briefed in the supreme court while back. they asked that a different definition of child pornography be used in the conviction in that case be reconsidered. you said in your opening statement that the solicitor general must extend any federal statute that can be made, and my opinion at that time -- something as important as protection was involved. that is what the solicitor general in the last administration did. i did not want a solicitor

general in the use -- who use that office to change the laws and the court. the the the solicitor general nor the courts make the law. congress does. i know that your in the area of first amendment law, you restrict obscenity and pornography. you have any comment on that case, and how will you keep that from happening on your watch? >> i don't know the case and i am not sure that i understand which solicitor general would work -- did what when. but then, it was defended later? >> it turned out -- and i think, all right in the end. >> i would have no difficulty in this area whatsoever. i would have no difficulty in any area defending a statute. i can't imagine why one would

have any in this area. >> in your view of his book on the confirmation process, he wrote that the senate should ask judicial nominees about constitutional issues, the direction they would take, and the votes they would cast. how do you square this with the principle that judges must be impartial, the ability to provide justice -- >> it is a great question, and i am not sure that sitting here today would agree with that statement. i wrote that piece have tried worked on this committee and had the privilege -- >> i remember he had written interesting things from time to time, but he was absolutely brilliant. he did as a teacher, and some held that against him.

i think it is good for teachers. >> right, right. >> you're good at that. >> i was going to say i wrote that in the position of the staff and feeling frustrated that i really wasn't understanding completely with the judicial nominee in front of me meant, and what she thought. i think you are exactly right, of course, this has to be a balance. the senate has to get the information it needs, but the nominee for any particular position where there is judicial or otherwise has to be protective of certain kinds of interests. you name the countervailing ones. >> i may not agree that the ether -- that thurgood marshall was the greatest, but i may agree that he was one of the greatest. i have respect for what he did

and the courage he had. i commend you for having had the privilege of working with him and others on the supreme court. i think you have had some tremendous experiences in your life, and naturally, i respect that. i don't want to ignore you, if your dysesthesia attorney- general, you'll receive the civil rights division. in the last several years, the division has launched some important initiatives that reflect a more comprehensive vision of civil rights. i want to know if you intend to continue these. one of these is the protection -- the protection of religious liberty. naturally, as a member of the church, the only church against an extermination by the governor of the state, there is a great deal of concern. but not just my faith, people of all faiths.

the division right now has a special -- it is also a strong program for enforcing the religious person goes the act which i introduced in this path -- it is a very important bill. william maintain the position of special counsel? how will this fit in your approach on civil-rights? >> it is an important question, and i agree with you that we need to continue the efforts of the civil rights division in protecting religious freedom. one of my concerns is that the number of statutes in the civil rights division has only increased while the staffing has been declining over time. with respect to the reference, i

would want to talk to the incoming assistant attorney general for civil rights at such time when he or she is confirmed. i agree fundamentally that work on -- what i worked on what i was in the department of justice, cooperation with this committee is an extremely important statute that we need to continue significant enforcement efforts. >> i want to express my regard for both of you. i have really enjoyed listening to your comments. i believe you are very tough people with top abilities. i appreciate your willingness to serve here. it is not as much fun as harvard, i have to tell you. it is pretty miserable at times. [laughter] i am glad to have you here.

>> thank you, senator. >> i want to welcome both of our witnesses as well. i know we have votes. we will try to get our 5 minutes in and do it quickly. mr. perelli, -- perrelli, let me start with you. hundreds of billions of dollars are going out to the financial sector at this time. we have seen this enormous spree of ripoffs, investment schemes, frauds. you have looked at what your predecessors in the bush administration had done in the financial fraud area. what will you do specifically to change the bush policy and beef up the fight against white- collar fraud? >> i appreciate the question, and i agree that in the current phase of the economy, we need to be extraordinarily vigilant both

in the civil and criminal side enforcing the law against those that would defraud consumers as well as defraud the government. as the attorney general, most of the jurisdiction of the components that i would supervise is focused on the civil enforcement. there is criminal jurisdiction over scams that come out of the ftc. those are import -- enforced by the civil division. we talked a lot about the need for enhanced fbi additional fbi agents to focus on white-collar crime because over the last several years, the fbi has had to transform itself into a national security agency. we also talked about the need for additional u.s. attorneys and working with attorneys in the field, figuring out whether a centralized tax force or more

dispersed approach is appropriate. we will need to focus on fraud, consumers, mortgage fraud, and fraud against the government, particularly with large sums of money flowing into the private sector. those are going to need to be extraordinary priorities. >> he told me you would look at putting more agents on it. i want to keep the record open, because i want to know specifically what you do to beef up the fight against white- collar crime relative to what was done in the bush administration. get back to as quickly on that. >> i will, senator. >> there was an aggressive effort for pursuing individuals that are sharing music files. the you think said they ought to pursue time accusing -- looking

at people that are accused of illegal downloads if they aren't looking at a small number of music files? >> with respect to the enforcement of criminal copyright laws, that would likely fall in the criminal division's it would not necessarily fall under the purview of the associated attorney-general. to date, [unintelligible] i have no reason to dispute it. >> one question for you, ms. kagan. i share senator hatch's views about your qualifications. let me ask about the unusual case of the illegal resident in the united states that has been held at the military brig in charleston for the past several years. he is currently the only u.s.

person being held on the grounds that he was declared an enemy combatants. you may have to argue the case, so let's set aside that. i want to know a little bit of your thinking and without it being 35,000 feet above the legal principles and the legal analysis that you might bring to cases like this without getting into the area they might one day have argued. don't be so general that you take me a 35,000 feet and i don't get a sense of your thinking, and at the same time, i want to be respectful of the fact that you may one day be arguing. i just want a sense of how you think about these kinds of cases. >> rashid the question, but i have this urge to stay up at 50,000 feet.

for the reasons that you say. the president has authorized to review of this case, and all the various ways of dealing with it, and that review is ongoing. i don't really know anything because i am only a nominee and i have no sense of how it is proceeding or how this might get to the court or if it got to the court, what the arguments would be. i feel as though i don't want to step into that area. this is very much an ongoing case and an ongoing exploration in the justice department of had to deal with it. >> tell me about the balance, the constitutional balance that you would think about. our country has always been about protecting the public, in this case, fighting terrorism ferociously and being sensitive to individual liberty. have you approached the balance? >> fighting it with than the

rule of law. those are the things that you have to make sure happen at one in the same time. >> senator kaufman. >> i am really pleased that you're taking on these new assignments. i find that we were and where -- when we were working to chairman [unintelligible] most of the questions have already been asked and i don't see a reason to repeat them. i associate myself with senator white house's remarks about the justice department, not to look back. we should be looking forward. but some things went on there that are disturbing in terms of keeping career people in the times of -- in terms of recruiting people. you will have some excellent recruits for the justice department. i am glad to hear that you feel

the solicitor general's office -- there is incredible experience know when macy's questions simple. the question that he ask you, kagan, that the justice department is looking into this, thank you for coming here today. i wish you all good luck. >> let me just echo what senator kaufman said and thank both of you for being willing to serve our country. as senator white house said, it is going to be long days, and we thank them for being willing to to share your talent with our

country. the hearings will remain open for one week in order for members to submit questions in writing. i would urge you all to please respond to those questions as quickly as possible. with regard to confirmation. the chairman apologizes for not personally being here today, business kept him away from the committee. his statement will be made part of the record without objection. i think you for your courtesies to be, -- today, and the committee will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] @a

>> if cameras were in the courtroom, the american public would see an amazing an extraordinary event. >> solicitor general elena kagan is president obama oppose a nominee to replace retiring justice the -- stevens.

the c-span video library has every program since 1987. watch any program you want, when you want. >> tomorrow, we talk to mark sherman about president obama's choice to treat -- serve -- the choice to serve on the supreme court. and that an update on the economy. and later, a conversation on u.s. security with former national security adviser stephen hadley. "washington journal," each morning at 7:00 eastern. british prime minister gordon brown announced he will resign by september. this comes as party leaders continue to work on forming a new government after no clear winner emerged from last week's national elections. here is an update from bbc's newsnight.

>> gordon brown announces he will step aside. caller: ♪ caller: caller: ♪ >> it has been extraordinary day. this afternoon, gordon brown's dramatic resignation announcement. >> i have no desire to stay in my position longer than is needed to ensure economic growth and the process of political reform we have agreed to move forward quickly. >> the conservatives were making a new, improved bid. >> we will offer to the liberal democrats and a coalition government, the holding of a referendum on alternative voting systems. >> and ward, with meetings continuing into this evening. michael is at westminster. >> talks broke up tonight just a short while ago after a dramatic

and exciting day. we have no idea who will fall -- form our next government. >>. has just come from those negotiations. we're also joined by a key member of the shadow cabinet. the markets have been watching every move. and we also speak to the french finance minister after a massive european bailout. with brown soon to be gone, who will succeed him as labor leader? newspaper columnists look back on the political journey and the legacy of a prime minister as clever as he was taciturn. ♪ good evening at the end of the day of frantic political maneuvering. the announcement of gordon brown of the end of his prime ministerial career, he will soon

face political detractors. he will secure a deal -- after gordon brown announced labor was to begin formal negotiations with the liberal democrats, the conservatives up the ante, promising a referendum and change to the electoral system. our political editor reports on the latest political gambles. ♪ >> at 5:00 tonight came the news that may soon lead to the unbuckling of this political crisis. gordon brown stepped out to announce that labor was now informal discussions with the liberal democrats to try to form a government. but then, he revealed the dramatic twist that have led to the coalition talks. >> i like to say something also about my own position.

if it becomes clear that the national interest which is stable and principal government would be best served by forming a coalition between the labor party and the liberal democrats, that i believe i should discharge that duty to form that government which would, in my view, command a majority of the house of commons. but i have no desire to stay in my position longer than is needed to ensure the path to economic growth is assured in the process of political reform we have agreed to move forward quickly. the reason that we have a hung parliament is that no single party and no single leader was able to win the force of all of the country. as leader of my party, i must accept that that is a judgment on me. i intend to ask the labor party the process is needed for its own leadership election. i would hope that it would be completed in time for the new

leader to be imposed by the time of the labor party conference. i will play no part in that contest and blackmail individual candidate. >> a dramatic news there, gordon brown resigning as the leader of the labor party in order to help bring about a coalition government between the labor party and the liberal democrats. how will the rest of politics react to that? how things had changed. this morning when the conservative negotiating team emerged from their latest talks in the cabinet office with liberal democrats, it was all smiles. the conservatives and lib dems to be closing in historic deal. >> further progress has been made, i want to reach out to nick clegg. >> behind-the-scenes, nick clegg

was holding a secret meeting with gordon brown which explains why the team was being so tight- lipped. >> i don't think i have ever seen three politicians so silent. >> the liberal democrat team has to go off to meet their mps, and later on, the party federal executive. the first meeting took place in the committee room of westminster hall at lunchtime. . . 

the you think you will get what you want from this deal with the conservatives? >> i do not know what the outcome will be. you have seen the statements. we will discuss it every step of the way as we always do. >> how important is all this? >> i think it is important. we can get something out of this. >> they are voting on a or b or something like that. i think it is a possibility. >> to think they will be happy with it? >> it is a step in the right direction. >> how pressing those words would prove to be, but gordon brown's statement meant it was now a game on. it is just after 10 past five,

and it is difficult to know where to go next door where this story goes next. gordon brown's dramatic intervention changes things. we have all been assuming it is about a deal between the conservatives and liberal democrats, but they're seriously seems to be the possibility of a deal between labour and the liberal democrats. when nick clyde made his statement, it was clear the liberal democrats were conducting a bidding war between two buyers fighting desperately for the same house. >> we think it is the responsible thing, and now open talks on a set of the same basis we have been having with the conservative party are continuing. gordon brown has made an important announcement today. it must have been a very difficult thing for him to say personally, but i think he has taken it in the national interest, and i think an announcement could be an

important element in the smooth transition towards a stable government that people deserve. >> when david cameron met his in peace in the, that 6:00, -- mps in the, that's a cop, he knew he had to improve upon it. >> what it appears as the conservatives are willing to offer a liberal democrat referendum on the alternative voting system. that is not the same as proportional representation, but it would mean a slightly fairer distribution, and it was gordon brown before the election. >> in the interest of trying to create a stable, secure government, we will go the extra mile, and we will offer a liberal democrats a coalition government, the holding a referendum on the alternative

vote system. >> we are moving towards conservative liberal democrat coalition? >> we are meeting again this evening. we do want to get a move on with this. >> it is not full blooded. in some ways it can be less proportional. >> it is no secret, but we have had but considering. >> labour held talks of the comments, and afterwards, he called them positive and constructive. labour is trying to trump conservatives by pledging without a referendum and also a referendum on the kind of proportional voting system the liberal democrats really prefer. >> michael joins us from downing street. how has cameron manage to keep the conservative right on board through all this? >> basically, david cameron in

older -- in order to get in the door at downing street has had to make offers not just to the liberal democrats but to the right of his party. there will be in peace -- mp's. there were serious misgivings about any kind of coalition agreement with the liberal -- the liberal democrats. as i understand it, it is more prominent right wingers, and the names i am hearing r davis, which must have been difficult to swallow given his resignation a year or two ago, and the former leader, howard. >> in your views, how will it work? >> a lot of people are in the labor party's. first, look at the figures. they do not add up.

the liberal democrats have 57. adding those together, you only reached 315. that is eight short of the finishing line, so they have to bring in other parties as juan -- parties as well. it would be a very unstable coalition, and you would only just give a majority, and that is assuming all the backbenchers remain loyal, and we have seen what problem gordon brown has had over the past three years, and you would run into problems, and then there is a problem of having a second, and none elected by the public prime minister, and then you would have you skepticism of whether gordon brown or his successor could deliver on these promises and a more

proportional voting system. would they be able to agree without a referendum or even to a referendum famines it is an understandable skip this -- to a referendum? it is an understandable skepticism. >> harry harmon has just been negotiated. she joins us now. you have done enough to get liberal democrats to sign up now? >> it is not about getting them to sign up. it is about saying that bearing in mind the public has not voted for any one party to have an overall majority and go into st. -- go straight into majority government, what is the best thing for us to do to make sure we play our part to have a stable and secure government summoned -- secure government? >> if that means teaching it to a referendum, you have just done that. you have told the liberal democrats you will produce a bill.

 you have to have a compromise, but i think this is really a scare story. the idea there would be a referendum without wanting to disclose what was being discussed. perhaps i can draw people's attention to what are manifestoes said, which is that we support the idea of changing the voting system to av, we think it should not happen without a referendum, but we have to discuss these things not only with liberal democrats both were -- but with the national executive committee and the parliamentary labor party, but what we have to do is sooner rather than later we need a new government to take the country forward. >> was the continuation of gordon brown in downing street a deal breaker? >> i think gordon took the view

he needed to take some responsibility for the election results, because it would pave the way more easily to a partnership agreement if he stepped down. >> he did not want to work with nick clegg? >> i think he thought it was in the public interest for him to step aside, and we can give him credit for that. >> liberal democrats would suggest it is a deal breaker. >> that might be with a walk by way of agreement, but that is neither here nor there. gordon brown himself has said he has stepped aside. >> as the best thing for the country. >> yes, it is, and i think we should pay credit to him for that. >> will the liberal democrats picnik a labour winner? >> it is not a question of that. we have not got into that question. the question of who is the labor

leader and for the party to actually decide for that, but i think at the moment we are trying to form a government after a general election, and we have to set the timetable for the leadership election. >> are you going to stand? >> i am deputy leader of the labor party, and i have no plans to step aside. i am saying as deputy leader. >> i want to make it clear you are not standing. >> you cannot run for leader of the same time as being the be the leader. >> there's no indication that he will resign to stand? >> it is my intention to stay deputy leader. >> who will you support? >> i think tuesday deputy would be different from to back one candidate or the other, but i do not think any one is declaring themselves as candidates, but we need to make sure we have a new

government for britain, and that is the most immediate priority. >> you must have heard him say this was clinging onto power at any price, and it is undignified. >> it is not clinging on to power. gordon brown is stepping aside. >> not gordon brown, clearly. >> it is our intent to play our part, and if we can be part of a partnership government, we will do that. we recognize we did not win the election. that is self-evident, but we need to play our part as parliamentarians. >> one of the key economic planks of the liberal democrats at the election was no income tax for those earning less than 10,000 pounds. you rule that out as a possible offer? >> we have already increased the threshold at which we start paying taxes, and these issues

will have to be discussed. >> that is a key policy. >> i am asking you, do you rule out new income tax for under $10,000 a year? >> you do not go into discussions rolling out or ruling in any thing. it is not a matter of principle. we want to help people on lower income, and we are lightening the burden of tax on low-income by raising the tax threshold. >> thank you very much in the. now i can be joined from westminster -- westminster from michael, who is part of the other negotiating team. you're not part of the negotiating team. you are close to the negotiating team. if there is a deal done between conservatives and liberal democrats, which we would you campaign? wouldav or against it -- for

av or against it? >> i think the important thing is you maintain a constituency, and the alternative vote does that. >> says that mean the leadership of the party would campaign against av as well? >> it would be a free vote. each individual would decide how they would vote if there were a referendum, and there is a critical distinction between the position we are offering and the position the labor party and harriet harman are offering. we believe there is going to be a changing, -- if there is going to be a change the british people need to decide. they are attempting to arrange a coronation of a new prime minister without the british people having a chance to institutionalize any of it. >> you're considering entering a coalition with the party fundamentally disagree over electoral reform, the key plank of their election manifesto. >> it was not the key plank of their election manifesto. before the general election,

there were a range of things liberal democrats wanted to secure. they wanted a fair taxes, and we're making progress towards an agreement between ourselves and them on the arguments they made. they also wanted reforms to education, where we broadly agreed and we are working towards consensus, and it was clear before the election that the liberal democrats said of course they had always wanted to change the system. they always wanted to express that. >> on the question of fair taxes, i understand you have given way on no income taxes for incomes of less than 10,000 pounds. is that correct? >> they have moved towards our position on the need to deal with the deficits more quickly and the nature of these negotiations. >> that would take 17 billion pounds to pay for that tax break.

what are you going to do? it is 17 billion. >> you were kind enough at the beginning. >> are you going to pay for it? >> you were kind enough to acknowledge i am not part of the negotiating team. in that new policy where we have two parties seeking to provide stable government, the negotiation goes on, because it is quite right. >> you know well the impact of scrapping income tax for less than 10,000 pounds mean 17 billion pounds. have you any idea how you are going to find that 17 billion? >> you did not reveal your entire negotiating hand on television, even to someone who ask questions like you do. >> here is what david cameron said during the election campaign. how do you pay for it? we have an enormous deficit. we need to reduce the deficit. you cannot go around making

promises like that, but you cave in on this. >> he has not caved in. you were employing the sort of vocabulary you can expect from a macho era in politics. the electorate did not give any party a majority. i do wish they had, and every party wishes to have more than 326 impis' -- mp's. we are now in negotiations and we respect their priorities. i hope we can provide what they need, which is a stable government. if the liberal democrats choose to go into an arrangement with labour, it is an unstable arrangement. if they choose to go in with labour, we do not know who the prime minister at the end of that process would be. we do know it is -- if they all went through a television debate and the public had a chance, we

know under labor costs proposal we could end up with someone as prime minister whom nobody expects to be in that position. >> you are generous enough yesterday and the day before to say you would give up your cabinet post in favor of a liberal democrat. do you feel as generous of the idea that david cameron would bring in right-wingers, ian duncan smith, and davis to a cabinet? what is your reaction? >> it is up to david, and it is a team effort in the conservative party. one of the striking things being that david has made an open and very generous offer, and he secured the entire parliamentary conservative party. there's a difference between our party being united on an agreed basis and some of the tensions we are seeing from the labor party. >> i am afraid i have to stop

you. as they are currently meeting to discuss the offers, no one was available. the deal making and horse trading going on now is the flip side of the tv debates. the labor leadership election will only intensify the atmosphere, but could this low the labor party of parts, and if so, who would be left to pick up the pieces? david reports. >> we do not know how we are going to get our next prime minister, and we do not know who it is going to be. on the labour side everything has been thrown wide open. the calculation has become the most political it is possible to imagine. the labor party decided gordon brown was going to have to go, but getting him to announce his departure this afternoon --

there was a chance that the party could cling on to power. >> i think the statement was a measure of demand. he reached the judgment after the election that the right course was for him to stand down before the conference, so he made clear his intentions to the british people today. he also made clear that nick clegg has requested formal negotiations with the labour party. we will continue to discharge our responsibility to the government of the country by engaging in these discussions with liberal democrats. >> the big question is did the liberal democrats make gordon brown's departure a precondition of negotiations. >> all i can say is what i know is at no point were liberal democrats saying it is all dependent on gordon brown going, and i think they know that is not their place to do that, and the labor party will decide who it should be, and gordon brown

has made a decision today when he stepped down, and i think he is a bit clearer than he was. >> make no mistake. this throw of the dice for the prime minister on behalf of his party's is deeply controversial even within the labour party. >> i think from the point of view of the electorate, the two losing parties trying to usurp the role of the major party, though i disagree with that party, will not be welcomed. i think from the point of view of cobbling together necessary numbers to rely on the scottish nationalists and the northern irish, their demand will be the the english are protected. also from the country's point of view, i think it will be pretty disastrous. from the point of view of the labour party, i think the

electorate will wreak revenge on the party, and that is my interest. >> the battle to replace gordon brown as labor leader has been simmering below the service for -- the surface for at least last two years. if a deal can be made to work, the person who occupies #10 long term will be chosen not by the british people, but by the labor party, again. >> there are lots of names, an dain expect -- they expect david milanee and to run -- milliband to run, his brother, his wife could run as well. harry harmon, any number of people could run. >> labor's deputy leader, harriet harman, has ruled herself out of the race, but

everyone else, including david miller baniband is still in. >> we agreed no one would put forward their names until the flood of business of securing a government that can command a majority in -- until the vital business of securing the government is completed. once that is completed, the party can get about its business of electing a leader. >> remember those debates everyone made such a fuss about? it seems our next prime minister could be someone who was not even there. >> we will not know until a new leader of the labour party is elected. >> not involving the british people? >> inside the party, it is quite common in our system to have the leaders of party, and from time to time, the prime minister changed during the course of a parliament. we are a parliamentary democracy, and it is the support

of parliament that rightly determines who governs. >> who is the big question. this afternoon, there was white smoke coming out of the chimney. the politics would simple compared to that. >> i am joined by a former conservative cabinet minister and tom harrah's. tom harris, would a liberal -- labour liberal democrat deal with any incumbent members to get to the country? >> i have serious doubts. a lot of callers have expressed serious doubts, and i think we have to tread carefully, and i think the comments this evening -- we have to pay close attention to them. >> what are the bases of your doubts? >> there is no way that kind of coalition can be remotely

stable. i and many of my scottish colleagues will never simply not sit next to scottish nationalists we have been trying to defeat. >> not even for the good of the country? >> i do not think it would be necessarily for the good of the country to have such an unstable coalition, and i think what he said was really important. it is not my job to admit defeat on behalf of my party. we got 29% of the vote. we lost nearly 100 seats. for the labor party and liberal democrats along with everybody else, a lot of people will be looking at that and scratching their heads and wondering why. >> i am going to talk to you about some of the details. are you happy with the latest concession conservatives seem to be making to cobble together a

deal? >> the leadership has gone the extra mile to try to get an agreement, and that shows we're putting the national interest above our party. >> are you happy? would it be a good move as far as you're concerned? >> i do not support the system ofs av. i like the system we have got, and i think it is one that has merit everyone understands, but i understand that if we need to offer a referendum on the issue. it would be up to the british people. it would be quite wrong to not have a referendum. >> you heard harriet harman saying they will go straight to a bill on av. >> what she said was the rumors we're going to offer without a referendum were not actually what was offered, but let me be clear. the new manifesto we were connected on wisely to a

referendum on av -- that is the very maximum we can offer the liberals in any doubt the deal. >> will it get through westminster to you think? >> an awful lot of my colleagues feel the same way, so i would doubt that. >> a couple of other issues. first, the story of david davidson to a cabinet -- good news or bad news is? >> i am not sure how strong that is. david cameron will choose the cabinet once he is in the business of government. first, we have to decide whether we're going to be forming this government or not. >> would you be interested in the cabinet? >> i have not been asked to talk about it. >> let's talk about taxing. no income tax for less than 10,000. 17 billion pounds, and david

cameron made it clear he thought that was wrong to play roulette with the economy to get power. >> i do not think they have agreed to say we will cut 17 billion after revenues in the first year of conservative government. i am a tax cutter. i am delighted if people want to cut income tax, but i also want to know how it is going to be paid for, and that is why i want more negotiation about whether it can be done or whether they need a tax increases and what they would be. >> when you think about how the electorate is doing all this -- viewing all this, it looks as if leaders have been coming to corrupt. >> where do we start with how bad this looks to the electorate, what i have been saying is what we have is

exactly what we get after every general election if we actually had elections under pr, and as soon as the voters have their say, you have secret meetings, a you barter away all the manifesto promises you just won the election on. it is the very opposite of transparent. >> i agree. it shows what a disaster it is. if you have a hung parliament, people would get what they thought they were voting for. >> the day began and it seemed a long time ago. the day began with the news of the eu and the imf putting together a rescue package. we have closed ranks to save the heroes said the french finance minister. -- to save the euros, said the french finance minister. we have been talking about the

impact and the news of the resignation. how is that going to impact it? >> sterling slid against the dollar, and the bond market barely moved. what we have seen since will not impress the market. people in those markets are expected to go a little bit - 2 mark of. the reason? they do not like -- a little bit tomorrow. the reason? they do not like incivility. also, people who do not like that our credit ratings agencies. they have been waiting to see what comes out of this. they do not like the arithmetic of the coalition, which does not add up to a government. the next thing they do not like is to see center-right parties throwing long-cherished principles of the window in a single night. it is not just an anti-labour thing.

the bigger concern is lack of there, and i do not often say the markets do not mind this, but i think tomorrow they probably will not. >> let's look of this massive amount of money. is this going to do the business? >> we have the details here. 60 billion cache of front to try to stop portugal, spain, and ireland from going the way of greece. that is real money on the table. 440 billion euros in terms of the whole system. 250 billion for the imf. that is important. this may have some relevance if we do not have a government that can get its finances under control, but the biggest thing they have done is to change the

policy, to buy bonds, and to pump liquidity into the system, and we will hear from an expert why that is so important. >> to have orchestrated buying the bonds. this is akin to the quantitative easing, and what this did was absolutely collapse the level and the cost of borrowing to countries like greece. greece will have been effectively paying nearer to 12%, but now the cost will effectively be 6%. >> but the cost of that achievement is for north europe to impose conditions on south europe, and the conditions are there will effectively be fiscal government. we almost drive towards a real economic government. >> earlier, i spoke to the

french finance minister. i started by asking what her reaction was to gordon brown's announcement today. >> there is clearly a lot of excitement, and it is a change of the guard. you would expect me to say something like this. >> which do you prefer? -- a coalition of labour, liberal democrats, and for others. >> it is for them to sort out what is best for the british people. >> is there not a danger if there is a vacuum while these negotiations are going on of instability? >> the action we took last night and over the weekend following from the euro group head of state summit was clearly intended to avoid instability in the financial market. that brought about a significant rally today, and it

is certainly better for the economy to have stability in then to have instability. stability is better. >> hollister indicated the united kingdom's hall exposure is around 8 billion. is that in accordance? >> it is agreed to provide the level of data, but it as a matter that we tried to sort out from the euro group of prospective. it is for the euros to sort out the euro, thank you very much. >> do you think we're heading towards a fiscal government in europe?

>> together with what i would not call a bailout -- because that is intended for something that is falling apart -- that is not the case for the euro group, but apart from that package, we have two other aspects. one is what i call fiscal consolidation, the determination by all members of the euro zone to cut the deficit, reduce the deficit, and to do that in a consistent manner so they can maintain the stability. the second chapter had to do with exhilarating. >> this is not the last crisis, but are we seeing the possibility the imf will bailout other eu countries?

>> the g-seven, the g-20, the european central spain, and the international monetary fund -- all of them -- central monetary fund, all of them say they want the euro to be stable, and there was a clear response in the market. that is not to say the imf is stepping in fees for night. what the imf is saying things, i will be of astute sordid if need be, and i will cost of every -- i will be of a two-step of if need be. that is a significant message. >> thank you for a much. and how did the markets react? in new york, the dow surged more than 400 points.

gordon brown said the election was a judgment upon him, but there are many who said this have been a long time ago. his political ambitions stretch back to his teenage years. he accompanied his father on business. his reputation of of bad whatever was reinforced by his behavior -- bad temper was reinforced by his behavior. will gordon brown go down as one of the tragic figures? >> there was a tragedy which he anticipated. there has been a pattern of dominant prime minister's followed by other prime ministers. he worried he would be like that, so he will not be entirely tragic, but if there is a tragedy that is part of it, he joined the second category.

>> i disagree with a andrew about the tragedy thing. if you look back at his career, he has been at the top of british politics. he only had a short time, if but when he began in 1992, he was at the top of british politics. that is an epic amount of time. most do not survive very long. he was the chancellor for of love and years and then became a leader, so it is an effort -- chancellor for 11 years and then became a leader, so it is an epic career. >> on the one hand, as prime minister, but in partnership with tony blair they won the last four elections. he will be seen as a unique chancellor and a very good

chancellor of until when he started to spend too much money. >> let's look at "the guardian." "the independent," brown steps down to deal with the liberal democrats. brown to quit in bid to win over liberal democrats. he was very good at that kind of maneuver, was he? >> they had been through 10,000 crises with brown. his own resignation is very cleverly turned.

it will become five an important resignation. >> he was taking a big gamble with that. it was a surprise to many of his friends that he never seem to find and narrative, and as a result he could not get some mission. >> he was only forced into this pattern of government. >> he had an awful inheritance.

he never fully from his public prime minister voice. of course, he faced a whole range of crises by himself. all range of things. also, it was the end of a government that had been a round of long time. it was a difficult time to get it, i favor. -- i've seen. >> given the legacy of iraq, afghanistan, the scandal. >> he would not have had this unelected prime minister hung around his neck. the other thing gordon brown and the colleagues are

responsible for. he could have been quicker and been in a much better position. >> a quick word from both of you. who will be the next leader bowman -- of leader? >> it looks as if it will be david milliband. it is very early on. i do not think it will be resolved for some time. >> 5 is all for tonight. be sure to join us tomorrow night of the same time and same place. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> now a debate between the republican candidates running in the may 18 gop primary for the open u.s. senate seat.

the candidates, who are seeking to replace bunning include dr. stephenson. kentucky television is sponsoring this debate. it is hosted by bill goodman. >> welcome. our guests are trey grayson, gurley martin , dr. paul r. -- dr. rand hall, and stevenson. thank you for joining us. before we get started, i have some questions from viewers. a candidate had been scheduled to show up, but we're told he is

unable to do to a death in his family, and johnson has indicated he is out of the primary, though he has not officially withdrawn. those notes for the candidates, but the four of you are here. kentucky has garnered a lot of national attention just like in florida. since this is the republican primary. describe the republican party if you belong to and how you would see representing republicans in kentucky. >> i think every generation renews its defense of liberty, and every generation of political party defines what it stands for. i think a political party is an empty vessel unless we review it

with values. we have to believe in something. i got in this race because i was upset a lot of republicans voted for the bank bailout. i do not know any republicans who think government should own business, so maybe we need some new republicans who are outside the system to try to fix the system, because i fear if we do not, the deficit is going to consume us. >> my view of the republican party is pretty similar to the view of president reagan described when he compared it to a three-legged stool consisting of conservative and national security conservatives, and you can have those together. i think that is the kind of conservative i am going to be, who represents the party, focuses on limited government and strong national defense, so that is the type of party i think of, and that is why i am going to be the best

representative. >> i will ask the question in a moment, but philosophically, are you two in agreement on some of the areas you espouse? there is disagreement. where is the disagreement? >> i would say -- as of their will on vote for any budget that is not balanced -- i have said i will not vote for any budget that is not balanced. trey so that is not practical. i think we have too many politicians, and with 10-year plans, 50-year plans. i think that is essentially admitting to failure before we start. the interest alone on the debt -- $383 billion -- is more than seven -- more than we will spend on all the roads in the united states. if interest rates rise, we could be a net debt crisis. >> do you disagree about that?

>> we agree on a balanced budget amendment. we agree the bailouts were a bad idea. we have a disagreement on national security. he thinks nuclear iran is not a threat to our national security. in the economic area he alluded to my comments about a balanced budget. my comment is going from 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit to zero in one year is in practical, and i want to be part of the solution. now i think it is a more practical approach. it will result in a more balanced budget. i do nothing starting from the beginning saying i am never going to vote like that -- it will get us closer together. i think that is the type of guy who will have a press conference, and i want to get things done. i want to be part of solutions, and i think we can balance the budget in other areas. >> are received an e-mail last week with the two-part question.

are you philosophically opposed to your marketing, and regardless to your answer, which you engage in this practice, given what many members of congress do? >> i am philosophically opposed to earmarks. i think the whole system represents and in some ways is symbolic of what has gone wrong with washington. sarah palin talked about the bridge to nowhere. it was earmarked by republicans. that is why i say earmarks are happening on both sides of the aisle, but every state wants them. the problem is that is the process that is bankrupting our country. >> where is the balance feminism -- where is the balance? when is it appropriate when moneys are apportioned to a

state court to a district for the common good? >> i say, let's face the spending on where we need to build roads, where the road has not been repaired in a long time, where the road shows high fatalities. let's face it on objective evidence and not on seniority. look at west virginia. they paved every inch of western virginia based on his seniority. i call for term limits, because i do not think we should base our spending decision on how long can someone grow old in office until they give goodies for their stay. we are bankrupting the country, and as long as we continue the system, the bankruptcy would get worse. >> in your thought process on earmarks, there would be an opportunity for a road to be fixed for school to be repaired or for some of their own -- what would be needed necessary

appropriation? >> phasedown needs of that project -- based on the needs of the project. if you been in 2.4 trillion dollars, less than that. right now we're bringing in 2.4 trillion dollars and spending four trillion dollars. it is out of control, and let's face the decision on the objective facts about which projects need to be built. >> where do you disagree? >> i think we need earmark reform. we need more transparency so congress has to vote on these individual products, but i think it gives congress the power of the purse, and the senator from kentucky can have a much better idea from these products but are high priority for kentucky than a bureaucrat in washington, d.c. we need federal help, and i would be interested in knowing if these earmarks are a good idea. throughout the state we have a

prescription drug problem. it is working. it provides treatment. it provides law enforcement and health educational prevention -- educational improvement. i think it is an appropriate year mark. when we tighten our belt, it does not mean we should throw out all earmarks. >> it is a democrat mantra -- let's throw money at no problem. he already identify welfare and drug dependence as a problem. we have been throwing money at its 1961. maybe we should have more local solutions and less of washington telling us what to do. >> it is ministered by the locals right here in kentucky, and it is working, and that is one difference. he does not want to go to washington to fight for our priorities. he wants to go fight for folks

in california and new york. he does not know how to answer that question. i think that is embarrassing that he does not know enough about it. >> tell us about yourself. are you ready to fight? why are you in this race? >> i certainly do not agree with these two young fellows, although i do respect him, and i think they are bright and articulate, but we do not have the republican party or a democratic party anymore. we have an oligarchy were six banks control 60% of the nation's wealth. the country is being controlled by money right now. you see it in this campaign. dr. paul is spending $3 million. i am spending less than $5,000, and i am trying to get a point across that money is not a dancer. year marks are not the answer. -- money is not fair answer.

earmarks are not the answer. we need to make a u-turn to god and godly principles. abortion still exists. for every 30 seconds, another child's life is taken. you know who appointed the supreme court justices? it was republican appointees who gave us roe vs. wade. you want to make a change, you need to send a senator who is not running for a second term. i promise i would only run for one term, because i do not want to spend 40% of my time running for a second term. money is controlling things. tonight i am releasing all my

income taxes for the last five years, and i have a pledge i will release all income taxes for every year in office including when i leave office. somebody needs to go to office unattached. we need to do it. chronicle's says, seeking his face, humble ourselves, ask the forgiveness of our sins, and then he will heal our land, and once we have done that, we can solve our problems and use these bright young fellows to do that. >> tell us why you got into this race. give us an idea of who you are. >> just because i could. that is why i got in. the reason i got in is because people like trey n. brand are

mighty good men, but they are wrong. both parties have put on the show to entertain the public while offering no change whatsoever. >> it is your party to cover is it not? >> my party is the gop, the grand old party. that means we stand for what robert have stood for, and the republican party deserted him. i got a good lesson in federal politics. he went to new york to be

president. >rockefeller met him in new york city, and said if you will accept him as vice president, you have got the job. he went back to arizona. >> thank you very much for your input in being here. we do invite your questions tonight. viewers, you may send an e-mail to nights. please include first and last name. you may also use the web form. or you may call us tonight. gentlemen, if you were sitting on the senate judiciary committee during the confirmation hearings for president obama's choice for the supreme court, which he made today, what one question would you have for elena kagan?

>> i would ask if she believes in limited constitution the way the framers intended. it would be a lot more interesting than just as suddenly your -- sotomayor was. >> would that have a bearing on whether you would vote to confirm or not? >> it would not. it would make the hearings mean more because you're going to after draw information reagan -- information from her. it will be interesting to see if she is forthcoming in these hearings or whether she will say, i might have to use that as an excuse not to talk about issues. i think it is important for the american public to give her a fair shake. >> is she a good choice, and would you have a question for her? >> the first question i would

ask her is what is her interpretation of the commerce clause. i think the government has been driven to the commerce clause from 1935 onwards, and i think we need to know is she one who would believe in expansionists view that allows government to do basically anything, or does she believe the constitution limits government to enumerated powers. this is an important thing. recently, judge, i was asked on national television about the health care billion, and it said, where does it say you have a right not to buy insurance? that is a misunderstanding of the constitution. he went to law school, and if he thinks -- he thinks the right is not listed, you do not have it. he needs to read the ninth and 10th amendments. that is important to have are rudimentary knowledge of the constitution. >> do you have a question? >> i would not consider the

appointment, because the a pointer is not eligible to make the appointment. >> i would have some questions, and i think the president deserves to appoint people under our constitution that he chooses, but at the same time, i would ask questions from a historical standpoint. i would want to have somebody who really understands dozen constitution, who strictly interpreted -- understands the constitution, who strictly interpreted it. i would want to know if he has gone back and read the minutes and the briefs that were written by the individuals who instructed -- constructor the constitution so she would see not just the written word but the interpretations and the leanings of the people who drafted it and wrote it. >> on foreign policy, assume

economic sanctions, regime changes, or other non-military options are not sufficient to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. would you support the use of military force by the united states to do so? why or why not? >> i think the decision to cdeclare war is the most important. the most important votes i would ever take would be national defence. i think it is the primary function of federal government and the most important thing we do. when making decisions on war, i think you have to have evidence, so i think it is hard to say, would you vote to go to war with iran right now? what is easy to say is iran is a threat and we have to do something to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. .

i think you can air on both sides of that. i think president obama recently aired by saying that we will not use weapons in no uncertain terms. i think the defense strategy should be privately held and was known about it, the better. . then we need to have some of these things close to the vest and not prejudge things in advance. >> do you disagree? is there a point that you would reach to support military intervention? >> we should not take it off the table because even the threat of military action can coerce, in this case iran, to change behavior and these pursuits that they have of nuclear weapons. it's interesting that dr. paul turns this is a threat when he was very clearly stating that them having a single nuclear weapon is not a threat to

national security. i am glad that he change his mind on that. >> did you listen to the entire speech? >> yes, i did. [unintelligible] >> just a minute, mr. martin. >> i watch the entire speech and he says that iran is not a threat to national security. it is not out of context. it is just the fact that it was his position, the position of his father. i make it is important to pursue the sanctions that we have talked about. and one of the things that is frustrating me is that this administration is slow walking those efforts through congress to get a un resolution. that is important but it will not solve this thing to give iran three more months to get a bomb. >> were you taken out of context? >> absolutely and i have been the entire campaign. i think that is why dr. dobson

swished his endorsement because your campaign is based on intellectual dishonesty. you will implies something that is not my conclusion. >> what did you mean when you said that iran having a single nuclear weapon is not a threat? >> i never said that there was not a threat to our national security or to the security of middle east. i never said it was desirable and that is what you implied by iraq. or that there was no objection to them having nuclear weapons and that is untrue and that is this on this. >> going back to that phrase in the context of your speech. i listen to the whole speech. you said having a single nuclear weapon is not a threat to national security. you cannot explain that. >> the conclusion was that what does it take to go to war? when do you decide to go to war? and are things that thread are

not the same thing as when you go to war. there has to be a larger issue. >> i am saying that you believe -- i'll use the past tense -- very clearly that our ran not -- having a single nuclear weapon is not a threat to national security. nothing to do with whether you would go to war with iran are not $3 is more complicated than that. the issue also talks about delivery. >> i would like add something real quickly. these two fellows here are as wrong as they can be. there are no minor candidate until the votes are counted. they are being treated as major candidate. we had been at war since world war ii which has been declared free we have been in on declared war ever since. it is not war. war is a means of increasing government. if we go to war, we win them. otherwise we have a police

action setting up one world government which is the goal of everything both parties are doing. >> our first phone call of the night is from mr. sam caldwell. >> thank you for taking my call. i wanted ask the candidates have they felt about the state legislating morality at the federal level? >> you're talking about social issues? do you want to clarify that a bit more and get the specifics? >> abortion and gay marriage, gays in the military. >> thank you very much. mr. stevenson? >> i would be happy to comment on that. i wear a little belt here with the 10 commandments and i believe them. i just finished traveling the state from one end to the other. anyone who has done that in every single county, you know

that we have all changed and the counties have changed. the studio has changed. one thing does not change -- it is called the holy bible. and if we fail to follow the teachings of christ in this nation, if we fail in defense to defend israel, which god gave the only land on this world to israel, the genesis 12-3, then we have made a grave mistake. this country on moral issues has lost weight. it has lost its purpose. if we do not turn back to the principles, all the economics and the world will not save as. the family is disintegrating. the government is disintegrating. our institutions, our banks, our insurance companies are disintegrating. we have a choice here and it is

simple. but we have got to grab it. we have to take the initiative. you can have the greatest idea and the world but if you do not implement it, it goes nowhere. >> let me get a comment from mr. paul and mr. grace and on the spirit legislating morality, a ban on gay marriage, let's say for example. >> there is a congressman from georgia who was also a doctor. he has testing that he goes through with each legislation. is it constitutional? is it moral? and did he ask it is practical and do we have the money to spend on these issues? that is how i would address this. >> i support of federal amendment overturning roe v wade at the federal level. that is the only statewide light -- like organization. i believe that marriages between

a man and woman and we need laws to protect that. i think that these are issues that are important to me. they are important to those in kentucky. >> let me return to foreign policy here just for a moment. how long, mr. paul, should the united states keep troops in iraq and afghanistan. >> i think that trip decisions, how many trips we have been any country, whether 100,000 -- 80,000 troops, that is made by the commander-in-chief and not congress or the senate. under the constitution, congress gets to declare war and decide on the funding, but it was never the intent of the constitution, to have 435 generals micromanaging troop decisions. it's unconstitutional for congress to tell the president how many troops he can have in theater. he can bring home troops and take them from somewhere else

and put them there. it is a misunderstanding of people to think that congress gets to decide what actual troop deployment levels are. >> would you have the same response for germany or japan? >> yes, but they can be involved with funding as well. in the war theater, it is paramount that the commander-in- chief have bought a $43 i agree with that. the congress gets the power of the purse. -- >> i disagree with that. the congress gets the power of the purse. he made a speech calling for the end of the iraqi war. as a senator from kentucky, fort campbell, fort knox, there are a lot of reservists, it is important to be involved in the funding of those and the debate to be a part of that. i will not marker manage the war

but i will give my opinion on the timelines. i think that does matter and it would matter and present obama would agree with that. >> this is a really important point. i think it needs to be made more has a devastating thing. it is the thing that you never enter into -- i work for united states congressman before. his brother was in the cia. i've learned a lot about studying history and the war 3 you do not enter a war lightly. and when you do, if you enter it too well -- when full-fledged or do not enter it at all. the problem with these wars -- they are not even paid for yet. the american people need to know that we are over there fighting and got our boys and girls over their dying and we have not suffered the consequences of waging those wars. the least we can do, whether

republicans or democrats, when we go to war is called the nation to order and put a tax on to pay for the war. i do agree with one thing. we are outspending ourselves unmercifully. one thing that these candidates are talking about is balanced budgets. we cannot do it overnight if we're still spending outrageously. you have to make the cuts necessary. you have got to get serious. you cannot just give away goodies. i will never forget riding around with people and they said the greatest fear was that they could vote benefits for themselves. when that happens in life, if you find yourself in the mess that we're in. this country is in a mess. if we're going to straighten that out. we have set the have serious people with serious ideas and serious honesty with the public and tell them the truth -- we have got to pay for the actions we do. if we're going to have benefits,

health care, wars, we have to pay for that. >> mr. stephenson, a question -- what do each of the candidate think about the death penalty? >> i think the death penalty is appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes, the people to create an egregious act. it is a program that the federal and state level to have the statutes in place. >> the death penalty is a learning tool. when i was less than five years old, i witnessed a legal handing -- hanging of a white man for the rape of a white woman. people came from everywhere and the crime rate went down immediately. >> i agree with the death penalty. >> that is a tough question for me. i am sure that there is somebody who had murdered my wife and raped my wife, i would want them

murder or a would try to murder them myself. in reality i must tell you as a christian i would not be for the death penalty. for one reason i must point out -- there is such a discriminatory system of justice in this country where black people, hispanic people are way over the majority in our prisons. i was not until that system was rectified properly ever before the death penalty. >> a telephone call from lexington. welcome to the program. >> my question is, are any of the candidates willing to label china currency manipulator? can they do anything good for american manufacturing? >> a currency manipulator? i think that they are approaching that status. i think it is very clear that the currency is out of whack with cars and it needs to be a

revaluation. hopefully that will happen release soon. the second part of the question is the most important part. if their currency was pegged at an appropriate level or allowed to flow to the proper level, it would help kentucky and america. it is cheaper to manufacture in china. it costs less for them. >> the balance of trade has been an issue for a long time. we need a -- we import a great deal more than we export. we pay for that would dollars and they have to go somewhere for it when china receives these dollars, they buy our debt. it is a self perpetuating cycle and i think it is coming to an and because the chinese are become rigid becoming more and more wary of purchasing our debt. people are more worried about the euro than they are the dollar. i think it is a house of cards that is coming to the end and we do need to be worried about it.

>> we should never gotten ourselves into this situation. owing china, allowing mexico, zero in japan? these nations that control our destiny -- until our nation get back to god and then gets independent, using the coal resources that we got, retrofitting our factories that are sitting in the, we employing people making kentucky products for americans, we can turn this country around but it takes an optimist. it takes a leader, someone to be there to push these things. you cannot just sit back and wait for someone to re-elect you. you have to have the brass and the understanding and knowledge and the ability to lead. >> mr. grayson, you promoted rand paul as a cookie candidate with strange ideas. for example, guantanamo.

>> i would say on guantanamo bay, why for six months to your web site say you wanted to close guantanamo bay? don't talk about that anything else. [unintelligible] >> if you're going to give the answer, why did you ask a question? >> why did you say anything until you realize you might lose the election? >> i have never been for closing down guantanamo bay. i of men for trying terrorist in meant there -- in military tribunals. they've talked about trying ksm in new york that has not happened. i support that in guantanamo. you've been intellectually dishonest. when i said that, it was about chinese uighers. >>

[unintelligible] >> i'm going answer the issue. >> let dr. paul respond. >> these are people that were being released by the united states, and the question was, do you want them in the united states? i said i did not want them in the united states. the bush administration said we're going to spend $250 billion and send them to the south pacific. >> i said that that was a waste of money as well. >> that is not in that speech. >> let him finish. >> he leaves out my sentence, if you cannot convict them or if you're not going to try them. he implies that i am releasing ksm and for closing down guantanamo bay, all of which is untrue. that is why his campaign is

sagging and failing. you've been intellectually dishonest. >> you said you wanted to shut down get mo. in the speech, there was never reference to the chinese. he is the one being intellectually dishonest. on abortion -- he started out the campaign by saying that he supported a stalemate. >> how would ask if you would not comment on your breath, mr. martin. it is hard for people to figure out who is speaking. i will give you an opportunity. they realize that. let them have a discussion about this issue. >> you believe in a state solution for this not a federal abortion -- the federal solution, that is on his web page. he in answering a question that he disagreed with the governor's position in the past. when did he have this conversion on these issues?

>> it is hard to debate anything with trade because he makes up the facts. when i was 17, i made my first eight months about abortion in my church. my church and not play of politically active role. if you believe abortion is wrong, you should stand up and say something about it. when i was in medical school, i refuse to do abortions. not many students did. i have been a member of the group for 20 years, american associations of fishes -- physicians and surgeons. i supported but state attempts and federal attempts -- he draws conclusions that are not true. what i find particularly shameful about his campaign and him as a person is that my kids go to catholic schools. they are taught that abortion is wrong from a young age and that is what we teach my family. my kids have to come home and see that trash that you put out,

gutter trash saying i support abortion when you know it is a lie and you continue to do it because you desperately need this job so bad. >> what questions you have for mr. grayson? on social security, what is the disagreement? >> he is using all democrats on me now. he is trying to scare citizens into saying that i am going to cut it off. let's have an intelligent debate about if they are going broke? seven workers for one retiree. we'd go up after says -- surplus after surplus. social security is left with all these ious. >> dui the question on that? >> it is hard have a debate. his description on the problem is so wrong. he accused the of wanting to cut off senior citizens when people know full well there are problems with social security. it is going bankrupt.

i would ask if you do not think eligibility should change, what you want to do, triple the taxes on young people, how are you going to make up for the shortfall on social security? >> we have to get our economy moving again. when our economy is growing, the day of reckoning is postponing. if we can cut federal spending and get our economy moving, we will more time to solve the problem. the second thing i would do is get together on these issues in identified with the issues are and debate them. i find it ironic that the day his campaign said the letter criticizing my wife and daughter on the campaign issues, the day that he invokes his children, and he did not answer the question. >> both of these young fellows were raised catholic and i think that is fine. i married a good catholic church -- girl. they were taught that abortion was wrong. i was raised bad dispirit being

bad this will not stop you from sending but it will stop you from enjoying it. being baptist in the state, if you have to remember that god is really mad at what is going on. i will tell you something. i fear god. i fear god because i fear what he thinks about what we're doing in this country on that issue. i want to come back to something else -- social security. >> hold on just one second. a question for rand paul. very quick response because we have other issues. what would you do about social security. >> social security is a very important thing. we need -- we do need to make some adjustments to this. this country is going broke. we need to raise the age of social security. we need to means test social security.

>> it is already going to 67 $3 i would want to look at that and do it on a gradual basis and be fair to those people coming down the line. you have got to do something here. you have to make the changes. >> the best way to do it politically is on a bipartisan commission. simply raising the age is one alternative. you will get the sniping of people do want to use it for political reasons, if you're going to take away my parents also security, to get beyond that typical democratic sniping, and then bring people together. it is less likely to become a campaign issue. you have to either consider raising the age gradually, and if you do that, you do it on younger people my age and younger and then those people have time to accommodate and plan for it. most young people these they do not expect social security to be around. we're living longer.

if you do not like that, then you have to go to the other solution which is tripling or quadrupling the payroll tax and i will not vote for that. >> jordan smith, a question or comment. >> i will like to know how the candidates are for hire education throughout the state, especially our public school systems, and promoting more restate. >> thank you very much. mr. stephenson, your first. >> education -- i was the last publicly elected education leader. i've developed television shows on all topics. what what i do for education? it is the number one issue that we need to put our money into. it is the only way we can lift us up, all votes rise with education. we have to start at that level,

the reading level, and from childhood all the way through senior citizens. education should never end. i read constantly feared we can use the internet if used properly, but we need to eliminate the pornography from the internet. >> dr. paul, is there a federal role for education at murray state university? >> note, the constitution does not talk about a federal role for education. i would bring it back to the states. if you send less money to washington, you will have more money in the state for education. >> would you not appropriate -- is there not a financial role for the federal government and scholarship awards or a building program on a campus? the war's most of that money should be better given back to the states and be spent at the state levels were the decisions are closer to home and more local decisions. >> i think there is a federal role for education. we have to think about the over

all context of spending. starting with that, i think that this is bad for early discussion for their strategic needs at our university system that they have. research dollars and that sort of thing. i do support financial aid for those students. ranh bay -- when paul would in all of that financial aid. -- would end all of the financially. it is less that we have to get our financial house in order. >> should they federal government spoke as -- -- should the federal government's bend money on campuses? toward the federal government has no business and education whatsoever because they merely use it to gain more power. >> here is a question from an e- mail.

to each of you -- when elected, your first vote will be for the allies some of the republic senate leader. he will you vote for? >> that is a good question. -- let me go to dr. paul. >> my understanding is that the election has been unanimous in the past and i don't see right it would not be. -- why it would not be. there's not been an opponent for senator mcconnell. >> if there was an opponent? >> i would have to know who that opponent was. >> at this point you are deciding whether to vote for senator mcconnell or not, would you be in favor of him? >> i would say that having senator mcconnell in leadership has been good for kentucky and i acknowledge that. there many things that i agree with him on three there some things that i disagree with. i think the bank bailout was a horrible mistake and thus far

represent the republican party. those are honest disagreements but i do believe that kentucky once two centers, not one. i will be my own person, i will be my own individual, and maybe add to vote for him and there are very -- other factors that are in favor of that. but you want a center that will think about these issues. you want a senator who will consider and be the wrong person. those having thought about it, how would proudly cast a vote for mr. mcconnell. >> mr. martin? >> if i am not, then senator mcconnell will do the job. >> i would not vote for senator mcconnell and i will tell you why. i tried to talk to him about health care and wanted him to negotiate some on health care to get tort reform and portability and some other things into the bill because i knew it was going to pass. i had been a democrat most of my

life. i've only been a republican for the last nine years because of the abortion issue. you have got to work with both parties. you cannot go in just say no. i think he has really horned kentucky by just saying no. -- harm to kentucky by just saying no. but mr. stevenson, moving live -- right along. let's stay with another senator mcconnell bill on agriculture, when you were writing the last night expressing that on all of our candidate programs, we not had a healthy discussion on agriculture in kentucky. he specifically asked about the farm bill. which of supported the farm bill that senate from mcconnell back?

>> i would have supported that. when i ran for agricultural commissioner, i was talking about some ideas. we need to look at tobacco and what would happen when tobacco was calm. i think ahead. i look at the future. >> tobacco does have a role in agriculture. >> it has a role and the selling of our products. we need to sell kentucky's products. we need to work with agriculture and our farms. published can the federal government did that better? the work they have to work together. everything in life is a local, state, and federal cooperation. >> what is your response to that? >> we need to get government completely out of the business of business. farming is a business. get them off the farm. >> i think that it has an important role and i would have

supported that farm bill. when it comes up for renewal in the state, i would support that. we're going to have less money to spend. that farm bill cannot be as generous as the last one. but is one of the biggest industries in kentucky and it does a lot of good for us. i supported senator mcconnell bill and i would again in the future. >> dr. paul, i want to response on this. why do you think that agriculture has not been a topic of consideration? is it one of kentucky's leading industries in should be in the future? >> i think it is one of the leading industries but it had -- but it has five been a big issue throughout the debate. i signed a pledge that i will vote for permanent repeal of the state tax -- the estate tax. farmers, concerned about if they passed away, that they had to divide up the family farm to pay the taxes.

we currently do not have an estate tax but it is set to expire. the democrats have shown a willingness to let it come back. i am absolutely opposed to that tax. i do not think federal subsidies of agriculture are a good idea. they often go to things that are not economic otherwise. they often go to large corporate farming. i am not in favor of giving welfare to business. >> of phone call tonight from bowling green, jill taylor joining the program. it was a question for those candidate to oppose the federal earmark. after the disaster that we had in kentucky, how would they proposed helping those community health centers? they need assistance now to rebuild and grow back. >> thank you for that question. >> none of that comes from earmarks. he comes out of an emergency

fund for fremont. that is a misconception. >> to disagree with that? >> it does come out at the mouth but it does highlight -- out of fema, but it does highlight that there are some differences. >> as we wrap up, ronald reagan persistently called his 11th commandment. you shall speak no evil of a fellow republican. do you agree with president reagan, and how do you assess your opponents in how they are meeting the standards that your phrase? >> i agree with ronald reagan if they are fellow republicans. a republican is someone that stands for the constitution as written $3 you're saying these two gentleman do not? >> i am saying that they do not. >> ronald reagan also said trust but verify. are you giving these boys a

little bit too much help? i told them that that they are -- i am telling the truth and they just think it is hell, just like harry truman said. >> on children's issues, what is the one idea that you would personally champion for the children in the united states? >> i think the biggest thing that affects our children's future it, the number one issue of the campaign, is the focus on the future of our kids. i think what we have destroyed our great country. our country has been spending beyond its means for more than a generation and the penalty will be paid by our children through the best thing i could do for our children is to rein in spending, in the pork barrel projects, and take a principled stand on earmarks and balanced budgets. it sends an incredible set signal to the marketplace and we would be that booming capitalist engine that did it socialism. capitalism is a wonderful system.

it is beyond compare but we have to believe in it and i think for our kids the best way is to do something with government to get it back away from the career politicians and away from what has been going on with the destruction of washington. >> childhood obesity is on the rise appeared kentucky ranks near the top. does the federal car wreck have rolled and helping child of the city in kentucky? >> i think there is inappropriate role. some programs run to the federal government and they can encourage healthy eating habits. there are nutritional programs. my kids get this in their school. there is some small role and i think the first lady's speech, if she wants to take on the issue -- and a lot of first ladies take on an issue, using the moral power of the office of the first lady did talk about the issue. i think that is appropriate.

legislating this, some of the things and health care bill that approach the nanny state, i have more of the discomfort with that. >> in 1978, mr. stevenson, you probably remember this well, a kentucky republican was elected to congress and use the campaign theme, he thinks like us. closing question to each of us -- each of you, which can lay claim to that today? you deserve to be elected next year? >> my home is been foreclosed on. i've been away for a loan modification which i have the final papers on. ipad medical bills with the wife, i wonder what -- wonderful wife gave me this think tank --. i just wanted to say briefly that i understand where people -- their problems are. and i have a great faith in god,

that god will pull us out of this but we must be optimist and honest and we must return to god. >> to you think like kentucky and? >> i am fit generation ky. i think my service as secretary of state is exemplary of this. i of ashley/spending is -- which is something that the federal government needs to do. >> he says that rand paul is not from kentucky but a quiet out when i said that i have been here longer than you've been a republican. do you have to have lived here for five generations? i chose to move here. my wife is from here and has been for many generations but i loved kentucky and i love the city of bowling green whereas live. i don't think there's anything you need for being here for 400 years. >> the federal government does

not owe us anything. it is not meant to do anything for us. it is meant to get out of the way of the people and let the people have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> thank you, candidate. next week on our primary eve addition, we will talk about 2010 elections, with scheduled guest, the chairs of the republican and democratic parties in kentucky, and our commentators. thank you for watching kentucky tonight. good evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, we will talk to mark sherman of the associated press about president obama toys to serve on the

supreme court. after that, and up to eight on the economy. later, a conversation on u.s. security with former national security adviser stephen hadley. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern. now look at how provisions in the new health care lolled made her change how health care providers are paid for their services. speakers include the executive director and a member of the medicare-fema advisory commission. this is one hour and 45 minutes.

there are two aspects of the recent reform debate that comes to mind in that contest. one is the mantra about the need to than the cost curve i hasten to add downward, over time. and one of our panelists, stuart guterman, he may have not coin the phrase but he certainly popularized as much as anybody. the other is the less wrote -- less root -- less frequently repeated mantra is that the u.s. has the best health-care system in the world. our friends at the rand corp. found that the americans get the best care and the right care slightly more than half the time. so congress and the president responded in the reform live by

loading the number of arrows into the cost and quiver to be put into use overtime of the next few years. this is a closer look at some of those tools and that the likelihood that they can achieve the very ambitious goals that were set out in the new law. we're pleased to have as our partner in today's program the commonwealth fund, a philanthropy fund based in new york city that had been extremely active over the last several years in trying to explain various options to policy makers. as i've noted before, ideas like medical homes and bending the cost curve almost cliche said commonwealth before anybody else knew what they meant.

if they tell you it is not about the money, it is about the money. we're going to talk about the money flows, what kind of the changes are in place to help shape that flow, how long is going to take, and what we do in the interim. i challenging set of questions, but we have a great panel to address them. a couple of logistical items. you have materials including biographical information in your packets. about this topic and about our panel. we also have a number of pieces of background information on line in a list of those that are in your package as well. if you're watching on c-span, and have access to the computer, you can go to allhealth.org,

and you can find all the slides that the people here are going to see on that side. i think we have a podcast that will be available tomorrow thanks to the kaiser family foundation. in a few days, you can do a transcript of the briefing and relived every fabulous rhetorical moment. it will be at the web site. for those of you in the room, i remind you that you have a question card that you can use when we get to the discussion part of the program, and a blue evaluation form that we profoundly hope that you will fill out and help us improve these programs as we go along. we have an incredibly good group

of panelists today with a broad range of experience. we're going to start with the aforementioned stuart guterman, the assistant vice president of the commonwealth's program on payments system reform. many of the background publications in your package and on the web site, they bear his name is. his done -- he ran cms's office of research development and information for he was ashley responsible for several important demonstration projects involving payment. we're very happy to have him start us off. >> thanks, ed. i'm going to start by modifying something i just said, which is that if it is indeed about the money, it is about how the money can be used to improve health care delivery. that is really the focus that

inundation needs to have. it is generally agreed that we have late system that provides all the wrong incentives and it is generally agreed that the result is rapidly rising health- care costs and quality that is disappointing, particularly when you think about how much we spend. i have to thank two for an article i was reading years ago that had part of this "in it -- i quote from franklin roosevelt when he was campaigning for his first term as president. captures the attitude that i think needs to be adopted going into the period of health reform. the bottom line here is, but above all, try something. and i think we really need to keep that mine is we think about innovation payment and health-care delivery. it also contains an acknowledgement that needs to be

borne in mind. we need to keep moving toward improved health care delivery. even if everything we do with that intent does not necessarily succeed the way we would like it. what other problems that we're facing? we have fragmented care, we of a lack of coordination, and health-care delivery, we have variable quality across parts of the country, across facilities, and we have high and rapidly growing costs. that is not a recipe that sounds very tasty to us, especially in this era of health reform. our goals are to create the right incentives to increase accountability for patient care at corms and resource use. to provide rewards for the nation as well as improving slow growth, and put in place and infrastructure to as a prop --

support providers in improving quality. how we did that is what we have to try a different approaches toward. this is a graphic that lays out the three dimensions of health care financing and delivery reforms. on the left-hand fertile "acts as, you see a continuum of payment bundling that ranges from the current fee-for-service system all the way up to global payment which provides a single payment for a bundle of care that covers and entire time period for the enrollee. on the horizontal axis, d.c. the continuum of organization that we have in our organization now. the variety of types of for the mission, small and individual practices, all the way up the fully integrated delivery systems, which we do have a number of three and then on the right hand axes, a continuum of

awards for high performance or pay for performance. we have a simple way, a process- oriented way to pay for that and we have the capacity to develop more sophisticated ways that include system measures and rewards for high-performance 3 d important thing to understand about these rewards is not that the reward could doctors and penalize bad doctors, although they certainly my. they provide the right signals. by now our system rewards performance. it rewards more volume. it rewards more invasive procedures. it involves more care but not necessarily better care. sending signals that the payments system that the health care system once better care and more appropriate care and more coordinated care is extremely important. but being able to provide the right incentives depends on the

organizational environment that you're starting with. you need to understand that we're developing initiatives to improve care that we start from different points and different places. even the set of organizations that are at the extreme right hand side of this graph in the fully integrated delivery system are very different from each other because they involve it -- he called in different environments and we need to be sensitive to that as we develop the right policies. in the health reform legislation, there are a number of new payment models that are either expanded or initiated. they include the medical home, the provisions in the lot to expand the current medicare demonstration. that is in development, providing the medicare pilots. the medical home is a construct

where you have primary-care at the center of health care, and where the half -- primary care provider is the source and connection of the patient to the rest of the health care system. it is the way that i view it as having the general contractor for your health care and they make all the decisions about where to go in here to go to yourself. the a co is a very popular model these days. it is basically a group of providers who are willing to accept broad responsibility for quality across patient care. he usually has reward for quality and help savings in it. i shared savings model for financing in it. it is a very popular thing because it is flexible. people who look at it see what ever they want to say. that is probably not a bad

thing because it needs to be a flexible model because as i said, it is implemented in different places in different ways. the main thing is that we need to understand that the health- care system has a right to expect from the providers and from the other components of the system one thing consistently across the board, and that is good quality at reasonable cost. how you achieve that has to be designed with a particular environment in mind. there are bundled payments which include single payments to cover groups of services, including hospital and post- hospital care, several medicare initiatives for global payments. the medicare advantage program undergoes a lot of changes. there's been focused on changes in the where medicare advantage is paid for. but a key point is that medicare advantage should be looked at as

a vehicle for providing models of coordinated care and making them available for patients and providing a model for a health care system. there is the center for medicare and medicaid innovation which is important from the perspective of making helper "-- reform sustainable over the long run. have a number of details on the web site. the secretary of health and human services has broad authority to expand models that are being examined and tried based on their promise for providing higher-quality at lower cost. there are some key considerations in terms of how the center for medicare and medicaid innovation should

operate that are taken into account. we currently have not only a fragmented health care delivery system but a private health care financing system. as long as we have the fragmented financing, at a very difficult to make good progress toward coordinated care delivery. more coordination among different pay years to at least make their policies consistent with each other, i think that is called for in this process. being willing to integrate top- down integration, their many initiatives in the field and medicare and medicaid ought to be willing and able to participate in some of those initiatives, as well as developing their own. there needs to be an array of potential models because he doesn't play out everywhere the same way across the country

prepare needs to be flexibility in designing. i refer to the change in attitude that needs to take place. when you say you want to test new innovations, that implies that you are waiting back on your heels for something to be proven to you, as opposed to be willing to try new things and keeping it going as long as they seem to be working. i think we need to have that change in attitude to try -- be willing to try new things. we should establish an infrastructure to support -- we're not testing people to see if they can do this on our own. we're trying to see how we can have a better health care delivery system that delivers better care at lower cost to our people. the federal government can do a lot of things and has started to do a lot of things to help make that more possible. including improving health

information technology, the federal government put a lot of money into that in the stimulus package, and again in the health reform legislation. i think that there are other care group facilities that could be put into effect, white community level coverage that provides 24/7 access to health care. practitioners that can help work with trying getting patients to improve how they manage their care. we would like to see these new initiatives be plugged into what met pat does and what the new medicare commission does, and also to feed into medicaid division commission, and also feed into the independent payment advisory board deliberations so that they have more tools at their disposal for trying to bring health care costs under control.

and to improve the process, we need better transparency. when i say transparency, i mean a two sided situation where you have goals and objectives, it innovations be crystal clear so that people know what they're getting into and people know what to expect, and you have information available that enables you to monitor these innovations continuously to make sure that we know what is working and what is not working and how to modify things on the flight to help them work better. and resource availability is crucial. we need to make sure that resources are available to develop, implement, monitor, evaluate these innovations and to turn them into workable policies. and i will end with another inspiration a statement, recently by someone who talked about the role of government in

spurring new innovation. he was preferring to health care and use the agricultural extensive service of an example of how that has worked successfully. the key is the last three words -- we had done it before. this is a big challenge but i think we need to be up to it. the alternative is not very pleasant. i want to thank my co-author on the paper that is in your packet. you can get more information from that on the web site. thanks a lot 3 >> thank you, stuart. i think this is the first time that we have had the convention center size screen available. i hope it helps you in the back see some of the more impenetrable slides we sometimes put out. next we will hear from a variety of perspectives and expertise

about the way they can and cannot work. first in that lineup we're pleased to welcome back to wilensky -- gail wilensky. she ran the agency and was the main health and welfare adviser to george h. w. bush, and i am pleased to say that shias not frequent enough of panelist at the alliance. thank you for being with us. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i want to make four or five points that support and expand on some of the comments that stuart guterman just made. the first is to indicate that this is the right strategy to be taking now. there's widespread agreement across different parts of the political spectrum that disaggregated fee-for-service, particularly as we know what

doctors are billing medicare some 8000 different codes, is room are relevant to the way that we want health care to move, where we were award providers -- where we award providers to provide care in an efficient way. the problem is while we have an idea about what that system would look like, we have very little knowledge about how to get there from where we are. where we are is a completely different world where most doctors practice in single specialty practices, 75% of the doctors practicing in groups of fewer than nine. mostly not affiliated or aligned in any type of formal way with the hospitals where they practice. the problem is that, given that we're in su