and for those of you who may not remember justice souter, he famously said it that there were going to be cameras in the united states supreme court, it would be over his dead body. [laughter] >> i can tell you our experience, but i think every country is different. we decided to do this on a trial basis 21 years ago. we are still running the trial. we were very wary, but what we have is this a -- we have stationary cameras. we are oblivious to them. i do not think everything about them in the course of the hearing. people on the council and counsel talking to the judge.

they are unobtrusive. . . -- goes to our public broadcast. it is not a run at prime time. if you are an insomniac, you probably watch more than other people. it 3:00 a.m. seems tbe a fine time. first they asked permission. and now they just do it. occasionally, we will get a clip on they local news. they have been very responsible. from that aspect, it has worked out well. has it changed the way lawyers

act? that is a hard one to say. i do not think we would say it has. if they did, i think we would end it right ther it is in any way is interferi with what is going on in the courtroom, with howe would hear the case, then w will not do it. that is why we are there. we had one case where in intervenor made a 10-minute barnstorming type of speech. i told him to sit down. it is inappropriate. i cannot think of other lawyers doing it. i do not think my colleague taylor their questions to the audience that might be out there.

sometimes i have trouble understanding the questions myself. nobody is dumbing down the process. nobody is outthere trying to put on a performance. if they did, we would end it right away. >> do you limit argument times? >> we limit them to one hour on each side. [laughter] >> i am realizing how different our countries are. your governor general?

>> i've always the deputy governor of but never the governor general. >> that is an executive function. >> she is the rivers in ziff of the queen. -- the representative of the queen. queen. and is not exactly an -- it is not exactly an executive function. we all do that. >> you did that when you were the acting governor general. you went for the same-sex marriage. >> i happen to sign that. my colleague was signing all sorts of other bills. that is the way it is done. if the governor general is not there to assign them herself,

someone on the supreme court does. which tried to make people understand we are signing the bill we are not acting as the executive or legislative area, but as representatives of her majesty. there is no aid if needed for a supervisory role there. -- executive for a supervisory role there. it may seem different to people who live in a republic. we have inherited certain anomalies because of our colonial background and the fact that we emerged the embrace of a britain, not by revolution as the united states, but by evolution. [lghter] [applause] >> it is in our declaration of

independence that the queen refuse to give her dissent. -- refused to give her dissent. is there ever a case where she does? does? >> i do not think so. i do not think if it has ben properly pass that it can happen. it is more of a formality. there can be times where we are uncomfortable as judges and you have the governor general signed this. it could be coming efore our court very quickly. we keep an eye out. the public does not always understand that this is a formal function. it is a formal function.

king george may have refused, but we do not. [lauter] >> you talked about your relationship with the 10th circuit. we are very grateful. you come to the 10th circuit a newly -- annually. i wish to tell everyone what you like to do when you come in the summer. >> most recently, i liked it [inaudible] that morning i went to santa fe, it must then 10-years in a row. when he died, i thought i really did not want to go along. -- alone.

my son said he would come with me. abby who is 10 and mimi who is 12 -- it would be hard to accommodate us in a hotel. roberts said to take- casita -- take my casita. that is the best situation maker have had for our holiday in santa fe. i met gene at a 10th circuit conference in 1994. it to is in denver. -- it was in denver. it was love at first sight.

her daughter even took my children to the flk art museum on this trip. i think santa fe has one of the best operas in the world. best operas in the world. [applause] >> as a trained observer, it proves positive that your son mended his ways and turned out quite well. he sai "mother, let me come with you." >> it is time for us to begin to close. i want to make sure each of you have had your full save. >> i have. absolutely. >> we are delighted that you >> we are delighted that you came to the 10th circuit. can you give it a thought or two ? >> the hospitality has been fabulous.

frank and i have been enjoying ourselves so much. my husband has a wonderful irish tenor voice. he makes a modest contribution to what is a wonderful adance. uygur up in the rocky mountains -- i grew up in the rocky mountains. coming to this beautiful area is so special. it is a burlreally special plac. thank you so much for letting this be a part of it >> the first time i met them why this in cambridge, england. frank, you are the leader of

this exchange every year the this exchange every year the canadienans came to cambridge. if they were the most jovial group. we enjoyed so much being with you. i gave a little talk. i do not even remember what it was about. that wasthe beginning of my affection for frank. i think we have gone beyond the allotted time. al is so sorry to leave this circuit. i wanted to hold onto it when the second circuit vacancy came. i asked the chief, can i have them both? he said, "nope." i enjoyed that conference so much.

it is one of the most lovely courthouses in the country. i amglad you asked marty back. i was terribly that he could haveeen here. you have been a most wonderful anpatient audience. thank you. [applause]

>> lend more about the nation's highest court from those who have served on the bench -- learn more -- read the list but with candid conversations i all the supreme court s justices. >> president obama got an update this morning on the economy, and in about 20 minutes he is expected to make a statement to the press. we plan to have it live from the white house rose garden beginning at 12:30 p.m. eastern. robert gibbs will brief reporters later today. it will be live at 1:30 p.m. eastern.

make sure to join us when we have last weekend's release tonight. it will be glenn beck and sarah palin from the lincoln memorial. following that, al sharpton leads a rally called "reclaim the dream." >> ivo president >fx president and their impact -- that is the tivo and fx president's tonight on c-span2. >> president obama will speak to the press and about 15 minutes. . typical of what is being reported in many of the reports

this morning, "a flurry of new economic data this week may pressureen bernanke to act on his vow to help a wavering economy hah -- economy on wednesday, we will see the first gauge of man national -- of national manufacturing followed by several poor showings by regional indexes.

so, we're talking about the strength of the u.s. economy and the u.s. economic recovery. the first call is from north carolina on the line for democrats.

barry, democratic line, welcome. caller: the way that the economy is going right now, it was basically put on a certain track that is -- i would not say plan, but the economy is revved up and they used different tactics through the banking industry and staff, underhanded, corrupt tactics to funnel the money into certain people's pockets. they have got all of the money and we are going to listen to them sitting here saying we have all of the money now and you have to feed yourself with no money but we got your money but we are going to watch to die now. host: what are some of these corrupt tactics that you spe of? where do you think that money is going? host: -- caller: first of all they were blowing money to people that they knew could not pay it back.

where does it go? basically, ok, basically they have made it to where you cannot afford health care, but you have to have it. t way i see it basically going, we are all basically going to be needing stuff and the people that control everything, like a game in the forest and all of that stuff, they will be controlling everything because we cannot feed ourlves in that way. host: in "the christian science monitor," this story --

hos next, call for, mississippi, on the independent line. caller: is not victoria, it is victor. host: sorry. caller: i often make mistakes myself, it is ok. host: what you think about the state of the u.s. economic recovery? collared coats terrible. host: why is that? caller: first of all, i had to

go to the veterans hospital, 11 miles away, and i was chged $1,122.80. they have not written to me, and i was -- they have written to me, and i was fully understanding of this, but that the bill would affect my credit as it went to the credit agency. i said not to them. i cannot understand, even for example they wanted to charge more for membership fees, but they wanted more money. i wish someone could expin to me why this is happening.

host: are you on a fixed income? caller: sir, i am. host: the charges, did they affect the way that you can spend and budg your money? caller: absoluty, i could not say if any more clearly. host: texas, scott, go ahead. caller: same story as always, taxation, regulation, and litigation, you have to get the tyranny of government off of the rear end of businesses. businesses are not going to expand until we see govement reducing these three things. that is just all that there is to it. this president has not even a glimmer. he just don't know what he's doing. he is a marxist. he believes the government is

the answer to everything and it is the problem, not the answer. host: let mere to you on -- from an artle on the business section of "usa today." it's sort of puts the ball in the court of congress. host: what do you think about that? is congress responsible for this? caller: absolutely, much of the regulation congress is directly responsible for. again, if you just reduced taxation, regulation, and litition, creating a good

business environment for business to do business, they willstop taking their jobs overseas. this is not rocket science. host: democratic line, san diego, california. good morning. caller: yes, until we stop playing games with that the american people, republicans run a lot of these coveted businesses. they are a war happy people. i do not understand how people can vote for them. if we just got tiring -- if we just start hiring people and stop playing these games, they will put the money into the economy and make it work. they blame obama for what is going on, but that is not right, the christian, get the economy

going, that is what we are paying for. host: what do you think is the thinking behind companies who are not hiring? caller: well, no companies are hiring. people hired last month, tossing dollars into a hole, congress passed a bill for small businesses. host: in the op-ed section of "the washington post," they write about what they think the recovery is lagging.

host: back to the phones, woodwind, texas, mike, independent line, talk to us about your feelings regarding the strength of the u.s. economic recovery. caller: basically, as i understand it, president obama wants to double the exports, but of what? we do not make anything anymore, we have no

manufacturing bases. no textile no furniture, no television. all of the equipment in your studio today and every studio across the nation comes from outside of the country. we do not even make our own underwear. all of the underwear in my drawer comes from honduras and el salvador. it is not just china. it is all over. host: what do you see is a way to jump-start manufacturing in the united states? caller: and shutter -- unshutter all the factories. i do not know why they call them the pittsburgh steelers, they do not make steel there anymore. is that simple. look at the industry's that are

left in look at the basics. go to the basics and look at why they left. host: thank you for your call. the lead story in "the new york times" talks about this coming out of beijing.

host: we are talking about the ate of the u.s. economic recovery. our next call comes from corbin, ky. jim, a republican line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: the world is run by the people who control the energy. we are not exploring for energy. who is going to be in control? it will not be s. host: where do you see us going in terms of renewable sources? traditional sources? where can the u.s. strengthen its economy energy-wise? caller: it will not be else, -- it will not be us, we will be at the back of the line. we will be using solar panels in the dark. at night, what good is a solar panel? thank you for taking my call.

host: virginia, reston, democratic line, good morning. caller: hello? sorry, i was trying to call "washington journal" and i have misdialed. host: know, this is "washington journal." where are you calling from? caller: phoenix, arizona. host: go ahead. caller: without regulation we get things like the bank misfortunes and the problem in the gulf coast. the regulation -- deregulation seems to be causing more problems. people living here it to go ploys and other countries and other people, that does not fix the situation. host: what do you see as the balance between regulation of

profit and growing the economy in the united states? caller: is out of balance but i do not know who is out there to put it back together, i am not smart enough to figure that out. but i do not want my babies to have bad eggs. host: in "the journal" this morning central bankers around the world were meeting at an annual retreat.

host: florida, independent line, william, yuan. caller: thank you, good morning. one of the biggest problems we are having in recovering from this recession and getting businesses going again, it is how the fdic is handling the banking system. i have not seen much written about it, but what is happening, the fdic, you may have seen it in your community, we see it in itself a lot. -- we see it in the south a lot. problems related to the economy,

not necessarily related to predatory wrongdoing or robe practices, anything like that, but retu on the news one evening to see our bas being raided by the fdic anthe fbi. there were ma accusations of wrongdoing. host: what kind of accusations? caller:ou know that the papers and the news alluded to fraudulent business practices, like the risky mortgages and stuff that were going on. banks down here were going to settle up the risky mortgages, headed up north for big financial institutions. you may have taken a hit on your 401 k.

but it was not necessary for the fbi and the police to cordon off the bank. they were expecting an examination from the fdic of the mandatory tarp funding that was going on. host: we are going to leave it there. the cover story this morning as this headline in "usa today," --

host: next, virginia, democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning. lost my train of thought. the first thing, all of the republicans in the country cannotee the difference between the economy now and when obama first took over. even those that have been watching would be able to see the difference in the change in

the economy. the lagging economy is only because e republicans have enough confidence to not reinvest that money as they have tried to force obama to extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. host: i wanted to ask you, what signs of the recovery do you see where you are? caller: in virginia the unemployment rate never got that high. but the one bad point about it was governor mcdonald, he refused to take the stimulus money that would allow people on unemployment to get those benefits. he refused that, which i thought was very dirty of him, people needed that money to keep things going. he was a republican in he refused to do it. what the government could do now

is give fannie mae and freddie mac back into the businesses of mortgages and let thos returning soldiers purchase some of those houses on the market, that would help the economy quite a bit. host: in the associated press this morning, the european commission says they have economic confidence in the countries that use the euro. "the main economic indicator raised, the main reason being another improvement in consume confidence as unemployment concerns eased. the increase in sentiment still has hope that economic activity in the euro zone economy is holding up well, deste budgetary retrenchment in greece

and japan." houston, texas, republican line, good morning. caller: i have a two part statement. this first one is for the new world order. the reason that our economy is like this, you could not even prott yourself against germany, japan, and italy, how are you going to protect yourself against the russians and the chinese? america, where is your faith? host: we will leave it there and go on to the bronx, new york caller: people have been complaining about president obama -- bronx, new york. caller: people have been complaining about president obama. the stilus, health care, the tax reduction, equal pay for men

and women for the same work, general motors and chrysler bailout, 55,000 people coming back to work. education is the pell grant, stopping the free-fall of jobs in the iraq war have been just about ended, i have got to tell you, white people should be falling at his feet. they are going to benefit more from these packages than anyone else. health care, who works? basically, flights. -- whitres. -- whites. having their children stay on until they are 26, that is a blessing in disguise. host: you do not see these policies helping racial minorities? caller: they will, but only a few.

more white people will have pink slips because they are the ones with the job, but chrysler calling back 55,000 people? who is in that package? basically, whites. host: basically people that did not have jobs with chrysler before. talking about the situation in europe, they're right here --

host: camden county, new jersey, democratic line, bill, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was amazed at how everyone seems to be talking around how to get the economy going and no one seems to want to tell the truth. yes, we do ship jobs overseas, but the whole point is that we need to take peopleho need to be retrained and encourage them to do that. when the republicans were arguing about the health care and all of these other things, no one talks about, particularly e media, about how well this

president has been able to get so much legislation through, so much more than most presidents in decades. still, the media does not say much about that. host: in "the baltimore sun," a couple of other items in the news, this one talking about the president's trip to new orleans over the weekend. most of this is how the store was reported on buying and "the new york times" this morning. -- reported on in "the new york times" this morning.

host: washington, d.c., republican line, william, good morning. caller: i wanted to correct that gentleman from pittsburg, talking about the steelers. i worked in the steel mills. the reason we lost that industry, they were paying koreans $2.50 per hour to produce steel in korea. that is what we lost that industry. the other industries, you have these guys on wall street, money managers planning so much pressureeos to show ofits every quarter, they pare the

company's down to the bone and eventually the only thing left to do is send theseompanies jobs overseas. host: how would you go about raising the salaries of the people that worked in the steel industry while keeping the cost of steel down and making it more attractive to builders in the united states? caller: the situation is so bad, i do not know how to fix it, i was simply addressing why we lost it. we had good wages in ttsburgh. the city was doing well. we made a living salaries and we did well until they started shipping the jobs to korea, where people were making $2.50 per hour. same thing with bril. host: we are talking about the strength of the u.s. economic recovery this morning. we got this e-mail from south

carolina -- host: gainesville, ohio, independent line, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you, c-span, thank you for taking my call. i just kind of maintain that our economy is completely out of balance. it seems like in the past 20 years we have pretty much destroyed the middle class in this country. it seems to me tt there are y too many people in the financial services industry, too many people working for the government, not the of people working in manufacturing. host: how do we maintain a balance? caller: we have to look these free trade agreements, tried to restructure them, see if we

cannot give part of our manufacturing base back. it does not seem like anyone in washington is willing to take the steps to go back and look at the mistakes that we made in and really do something about it. if you look at financial regulation, it seems like it has been written by the banks and wall street. it does not see like there is any ho for a regular person in the united states. host: in "the wall street journal" this morning --

host: princeton, indiana, bill, democratic line, go ahead. caller: one man said that it did not take a rocket scientist to figure this out, and he is right. i will tell you what has happened, it is the peoe and business econosts who have come out, the accountants come out, looking to make an extra time. -- dime. not even thinkinabout the people that it affects. cliit affects several communities, not just one community.

evansville is not far from me, they have a whirlpool factory there that employs several thousand people at one time, and now it has gone to mexico just because of greed. it is all about greed. everyone giv the union a bad time, but the unions give people a living wage. a living wage is now not even close to what they should be. host: thank you for the call. we have a twier message here from boring file clerk. host: i am "the houston chronicle," the new story --

host: akron, ohio, you are on. caller: i just nted to say that i think it is impossible for america to survive global capitalism, like the man was saying, when the jobs overseas,

why would any company who has a bottom line help america? host: how do we get more profits for the united states and keep jobs here? caller: all of these regulations that we have, i do not see a way that it can be done. i think that this has been planned for a long time. caller: -- host: a plan by who? caller: deletes, d illuminati, the people that run the world. host: oil exploration in cuba is going ahead as the headline here in "the financial times."

host: eastlake, ohio, jackie, good morning. caller: the reason that these companies went to china, it was a bottom-line. the fact that it was slave labor where they did not have to worry about worker conditions. in the multinationals, what has happened is the multinationals have gone to china, giving up our international rights and properties, china is going to take over the country, not only economically, but militarily and we will be the losers.

host: joseph, frederick, md., good morning. caller: i have got a few comments to make regarding the economy. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to thank president obama for the stimulus package, it was a very big boost. and especially over the last year. as far as recovery is concerned, america is responsible for the recovery. we need to be responsible for our money. we do not have the stimulus in our own country to purchase things in america. host: in "the detroit free press" this morning, a story regarding the housing industry.

host: you can read more of that online at their web site. tacoma, washington, republican line, good morning, welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the strength of the u.s. economy? caller: the question should be for it -- framed better. what about the real u.s. economy and the pele's economy? host: who are these people that are insulatedfrom the real world? caller: the sector of our population from the city, state,

county, and fed, making more than the rest of us, pensions at 12% increases every year, it regardless of what the stock market does. union attorneys go behind the scenes and negotiate with whom? the same people they are representing. if that is not the biggest corruption you of our seen in u.s. history, then i do not know. the result is you have been insulated section of the economy voting as a block for themselves, not for the country. they are not doing what the country needs. they're just continuing to assume that a few rogue government with a top-down approach, we will have prosperity, and we simply will not until the government is reduced. until liability is reduced, you

pay money to the fed every year. i could never afford a down payment. for the gentleman that called in about the bush tax cuts and the rich, i am the rich. i cannot afford a home, i cannot afford the economy because i laid the golden egg for these feds. host: in your response here, " the u.s. recovery is stalling as a matter of economics, the balance of risk strongly favors further fiscal and monetary stimulus -- caller: i happen to believe that the fed is the problem. i am not cynical about it, but i

think that when thomas jefferson said that those who control your money are stronger than the army, he was absolutely right. anyone turning to the fed for results, i cannot understand it. if the fed was not controlling your money, if they were just doing what they were originally intended to do, buffering money into the u.s., we would be strong, but instead of manipulating everything, it causes an up and down. host: on the front page of "usa today" this morning --

host: also this morning in "the wall street journal" --

coast of gaithersburg, md., independent line, thank you for waiting. caller: your welcome. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i am wondering where this country is going. originally i am from russia and everyone in that society is employed, going back 20 years to see how people did in the socialist regime. i think that there is a simple way to move the economy forward, ke them interested in keeping the money here. personal entities, if a company has more than 50% of the work force outside of the united states, let them live in china

under a communist regime. i am >> you are looking at the rose garden where we will hear a statement by president obama shortly. following the statement we will bring you a press briefing by robert gibbs. the update is now scheduled for 2:00 p.m. eastern. while we wait for president obama's statement let's return to "washington journal." joins us from "the national journal." he is here and talk about things like u.s. foreign policy, welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: this week the president

will be talking about the drawdown of forces in iraq. the headline here, "no let up for some forces." give us the assessment of your situation -- of the situation over there. guest: practical, good but trending down, unfortunately. last week there were 13 attacks from all over the country. the political situation is totally and completely frozen, almost six months since the election. most of the negotiations have stopped for ramadan. did you have six, potentially eight or nine months of total draft. host: in "the philadelphia inquirer" this morning, "two months to take a new vote could foster turmoil, the fact that

they have not been able to come together could fuel more confusion." guest: this is the part of the world that literally invented the idea of negotiating in the dark. none of the people that won the last election, neither of them want a new election. no one in iraq wants a new election. i think that the outgoing u.s. commander that floated this idea is his way of giving him -- giving them a nudge saying that they will not wait forever. host: what do the troops there think about the drawdown? do they have faith in these security forces? guest: the answers range from some people did not know that it was happening because they focus on the day-to-day concerns, some

people say it is a great thing, because it was embarrassing for iraq, who is very nationalistic, but in general they think that they are good enough for internal security, but they could do nothing against a foreign force. host: "the commander of american forces in iraq will leave the country on wednesday after four years there." what kind of transition will be taking place regarding the command of u.s. forces remaining in after he leaves? guest: it is amazing, forces will have shrunk significantly. by the time that he believes there will be under 50,000 left in the country. for the most part, advising and assisting, combat breaking out at any time.

for the most part, the mission has changed to training, largely confined to bases, focused mostly on training. host: we are talking about u.s. foreign policy in iraq, pakistan, and elsewhere in the least. -- in the middle east. if you would like to be a part of the conversation, give us a call. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages using e-mail and twitter. in "the washington post" this morning it talks about officers that are weary and humble. give us a sense, of months the troops, how do they feel about their presence? guest: some of them are moving into their sixth tour, they feel they have survived and seen

signs of progress. the troops in afghanistan, they felt that they were the forgotten soldiers, but now the people in iraq wish that they were in afghanistan because that is where the action is and iraq has become the forgotten war. host: shifting gears here, talking about the peace talks that will be happening in washington later this week --

host: your thoughts? guest: that is a very big factor. israel has dramatically reduced the attacks, which has allowed them to increase their operations in the west bank. there targeted assassination program has also reduced violence. the west bank is growing very strongly. this is part of the top territory run by the former world bank official palestinian prime minister. they have stability and economic growth. host: we will get back to that of bed in a moment from the brookings institution later run in the discussion, but right now we are going to the phones are in georgia. doug, you are on yochi dreazen. -- don with yochi dreazen -- you are on with yochi dreazen.

caller: people this morning were trying to ask the president if he is muslim. i have one comment, president obama is the best double talk her i have ever heard in my life. every time he changes or does something for the country, i am one of those people that has no faith. i am really sorry and i hope that he does do something for the country. host: have you seen any concrete evidence that would lead you to believe that the president is a muslim and not a christian? caller: part of his comments are about how he wants to impress the muslims. he made that statement, i heard

him on television. host: wanting to impress them does not mean that he is one. in several instances he has said he is a christian. host: true, but if you want to believe, but that bosc would set a lot of people -- but that mosque but sets a lot of people. host: how is this controversy playing in the middle east, yochi dreazen? does it matter to the people in israel and other parts of afghanistan? this controversy we are having in the united states regarding the president's religion? of guest: where it is a big story, unfortunately, other parts of the world where we would like to not be a big story. places where the president is deeply unpopular and many of the

conspiracy theories see the war as a war against islam. it is playing very big in some parts of the world. host: independent line, donald. caller: i am shocked, i did not realize that things were so wonderful in the gaza region and that the palestinians were flourishing so well. i was under the impression that eight ships were being blocked and terrorist israeli troops were killing people. thank you for the update. as far as the iraq war is concerned, this is a trip -- complete tragedy that never should have happened. saddam hussein was completely cut off, and basically i think of this war was inspired by the israeli lobby in the united states, who was pushing for us

to invade iran. host: yochi dreazen guest: to clarify, i was talking about the west bank, not gaza -- host: yochi dreazen? guest: to clarify, i was talking about the west bank, not gaza. the question of whether or not it back is worth it, that is the question that should be guessed right now. what does it mean to go from combat advisory to 50,000 troops? those are the trees, the forest is that now that the war is winding down, is it worth it? thousands of lives lost amongst the iraqis, billions upon trillions of dollars spent. seeing if it is worth the and this is victory, if we could move on for one moment, that is what makes the president's speech tomorrow night so tricky. this is a war that he has

promised to wind down, but how will he decide to frame it the phrase we keep hearing is winding down the war responsibly or something similar. host: this deadline for withdrawing the troops is actually set by president bush. given the situation in iraq right now, if they did not have that party and fast deadline set by the earlier administration, do you think that the obama administration would have pulled the troops out at a slower pace? guest: a great question, i have thought about that myself. my answer is probably not. remember, when the president bush was signing this treaty with the iraqis, the afghan war was an afterthought. if the obama administration had made the same decisions on

afghanistan that they did, they simply could not keep the number of troops in iraq that they had during the surge. host: the next call, from sebring, florida, democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you. in iraq, it seems to me that the violence is going to be inevitable. this is the exact same scenario that we went through in vietnam that was part of the atrocities after we pulled out of vietnam. like the outcome in vietnam, that country has finally settled into itself. host: yochi dreazen? guest: in some ways i think that is the best case scenario. i do not mean that facetiously, but for this to be a stable country, it has to be a country where all three groups reach agreements that they can live with. it might not be the answer is that we like as americans, but

you are right, did send the message, and i am not trying to make light of the fact that for this to be stable and long term, that is what has happened. host: you mentioned afghanistan, this is from "the wall street journal" this morning. . as this deepens, you're getting main avenues of concern, one is corruption. president cars that appears

willing to buy your are prosecutors who have been leading investigation probe, but the other one has less attention. they have been questioning virtually everything general petraeus wants to do. if we take a step back, the obama administration by year generalfired general mcchrystal. petraeus of wants to do a range of things. he wants to have trouble malicious. and he wants to have american troops living in afghanistan population centers. the cars i in ministrations that they oppose that. -- the carkharzi administration was opposed to that. but the fact that the last ditch american general with any credibility is being rebuffed

again and again is a bigger concern. host: if the story continues to take traction, how much more difficult will it be for general petraeus to achieve his michigan in afghanistan? guest: people who know internal karzai say that he is a deeply paranoid man. he very rarely leaves his compound. he is always worried about foreign spies. if he believed that all of this advisers are on the cia payroll, you can imagine he will become even more host: yochi dreazen is here to talk about u.s. foreign policy, afghanistan, pakistan. elsewhere, the conversation continues with christian, arlington, virginia. caller: christopher.

thank you for taking my call. if they are winding down in iraq -- all i was reading the paper the other day -- why would the state department be contacting me to thousands of people who will be risking their lives in iraq after troops are pulling up? what is the purpose of that, does that mean more contract people? guest: that is a great question. you are seeing the military mission it will not be led by the state department. iraq remains dangerous. for the 2000 employees of the state department in iraq, they will have a veritable army of contractors for security. it may be one of the half-dozen

companies but estimates that we hear from the state department are that they may hire a thousand to cure the contractors. you are right. you will have thousands of contractors putting their life on the line, but that is a function of military drawdown. host: next phone call. caller: i was wondering how you think these muslim countries feel about the propaganda that we are promoting, here in america, in the run-up to the war. there seemed to be some from demonization going on on tv. [inaudible]

what do you think about how that plays out, policy? guest: in part on the world where there is already suspicion about the u.s., a belief that our actions in afghanistan and iraq, that this is part of a broader war on islam, this adds fuel to the fire. my personal sense is that there is a delayed reaction to the 9/11 attacks. in the immediate aftermath, president bush went to muslim prayer services, >> we leave this portion to take you to a statement live by president obama. >> adjustment in the meeting with my economic team about the

current state of the economy and additional steps we should take to move forward. and has been nearly two years since our economy bordered on the brink of collapse. at the time, no one knew how deep the recession would go and have it it would wreak on businesses across the country. while we did know is that it took nearly a decade -- how're we doing on sound dies? -- on sound guys? it would take nearly a decade in order for -- can you still hear us? it took nearly a decade to dig the hole we are in, and would take longer than any of us would like to climb our way at.

while we have taken a series of measures and, along with since then, the fact is that too businesses are still struggling, to many americans are still looking for work, and too many communities are far from being whole again. that is why my administration remains focused every single day on pushing this economy forward, preparing the damage that has been done, and promoting growth we need to get people back to work. so as congress prepares to return to session, my economic team is hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference in both promoting growth and hiring in the short term and increasing our economy's competitiveness in the long- term. steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year. redoubling our investment clean

energy and research and development. rebuilding more of our infrastructure for the future. further tax cuts to encourage businesses to put their capital to work creating jobs here in the united states. i will be addressing these proposals in further detail in the days and weeks to come. in the meantime, there is one thing we know we should do, something that should be congress's first order of business when it gets back, and that is making it easier for our small businesses to grow and higher. we know in the final few months of last year small businesses accounted for more than 60% of the job losses in america. that is why we passed eight different tax cuts for small businesses and work to expand credit for them. we have to do more. there is currently a jobs bill before congress that would do two big things for small

business owners, cut more taxes and make available more loans. it would help them get the credit they need and eliminate capital gains taxes on key investments should have more to invest right now. it would accelerate $55 billion of tax relief to encourage american businesses, small and large, to expand investments over the next 14 months. unfortunately this bill has been languishing in the senate for months. held up by partisan minority that will not even allow it to go to a vote. that makes no sense. this bill is fully paid for. it will not add to the deficit, and there is no reason to block it aside. politicia -- besides pure partisan politics. just this morning as story showed that small businesses had put hiring and expanding on hold while waiting for the senate to

act on this bill. simply put, holding this bill hostage is directly to the instrumental to our economic growth. i asked senate republicans to drop the blockade. i know we are entering election season, but the people who sent us here expect this to work together to get things done and improve the economy. no single step is a silver bullet that will reverse the damage done by the bubble and bust cycle that cause the economy to go into the slide. it will take a full-scale attack that not only helps in the short term but bill to a firmer foundation that makes the nation's stronger for the long haul. this step will benefit small business owners in the economy right away. that is why it has to get done. there is no doubt we still face serious challenges. if we rise above the politics of the moment to summons an equal seriousness and purpose, i am

absolutely confident we will meet them. i am confident in the american economy in confidence in the american people. we just got to start working together to get this done. think you very much. -- thank you very much. >> president obama talking about the economy, tax incentives and small business legislation from the rose garden at the white house. coming up shortly, we will bring you a press briefing by robert gibbs. that briefing is now scheduled for 2:00 eastern. join us tonight when we will have the weekends rallies from here in washington, starting at 8:00 it is glenn beck and sarah

palin. after that, al sharpton leads the reclaimed agreement rally. what both tonight here on c- span. -- watch both tonight here on c- span. the impact of digital recorders are having on the industry, fewer ships, and that advertisers tonight at 8:00 on "the communicators." we take a look now at technology and border security. is the assistant commissioner of the u.s. customs border and protection policy and acquisition office. he is here to talk about the secure border initiative project. first of all, what is the project, how is it supposed to work? guest: as a contact, it was a broad policy, and initiative of

the homeland security policy, to look at the totality of things needed to secure the border. over time, it has become more focused on two elements. one was the construction of the physical fence along the border. there is another technology element, the ability to have fixed cameras on towers, other systems, that will collect information at the border, get that information to the border patrol, so that they can more effectively act on that information. we have the technical infrastructure and technology. host: in the "usa today" they talk about the human element.

how does the human element play into that? guest: when we talk about border security, we talk about three elements that have to be combined in a constructive way to provide that security. technology is one of them, tactical security is another, and the third is personnel. the third is probably the most robust in capable of those elements. we use the first two to make the job of the personnel a bit easier. talking about national guard, cbp officers, they are the ones that have to enforce the security. host: in this report on "the

brownsville herald" -- talking about the failure of the program started under the bush administration. let me get your response to the statement by the judge that it is an utter failure. guest: the physical sense is largely constructed, as it says. that does seem to have a significant impact. that was done largely on

schedule and on cost. when you talk about failure in the program, we are frequently talking about the technology called fbi net. that has been way behind schedule and cost. i think we would characterize that as a failure, at this point. however, it has been deployed in two areas of the border, and we're checking out its operations to see where it makes more sense to deploy. host: we are talking about border security with mark borkowski. he is the assistant commissioner of the acquisitions department. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. again, if you have called in

last 30 days, today would be the day to send us a message through e-mail or twitter. alvin, go ahead. caller: when we look at border security, the number of illegal aliens right now is 20 million- plus, why was there no concern about the illegal aliens crossing the border? guest: there has always been a concern about the border, but frankly, the concern was heightened after 9/11. the border being a porous represents a potential threat. we have always been concerned about the security of the border but that to charity has been heightened. most of the people here in the country, although here

illegally, do not seem to be a threat, criminal acts. we are concerned about drugs, weapons, smuggling across the border. that is why we are taking significant increase steps. host: mark from carmel, new york. caller: you made a statement about illegal immigrants being here, not a high threat to commit a crime. being here illegally itself is a crime. as far as technology security, i do not think that will work well. building a fence that would really keeping them out, manned by security cameras intermittently will it possibly be in better way than to spend money on technology.

that is my statement. guest: first of all, i think there is a lot of confusion about ball. it is not a crime to be -- about the law. in is not a crime to be here illegally. -- is not a crime to be a very illegally, although the way that you come here does matter. the funds that we have does not prevent people from crossing the border. it delays them. to allay people's progress, so we have time to respond to a incursions over the fence. normally, that response is done by border control. technology can augment that because the offense. those three things together makes sense.

you could conceive of hundreds of thousands of border patrol agents perhaps covering that, but you could do the job with a lot fewer people with the right technology infrastructure. host: this tweet says -- guest: i am not sure what the reference to fraud is, but it is not true that nobody goes to jail. we are selective in what we prosecuted as we need to be. there are people that go to jail, especially people smuggling other folks, drugs into the country. people who are a threat, who are repeat offenders. at the ports of entry, if you fraudulently present yourself, that is a crime, and is prosecutable.

host: how tall is the offense? guest: 15 feet to 18 feet in the area where it is a pedestrian deaths. host: what do you say to critics who say that the only thing this will do is increase the production of 20-foot ladders in mexico? guest: we never expected this to stop people from coming through. this just takes them more time. host: next phone call, a corpus christi, texas. arthur. caller: is any effort being made, perhaps along certain zones, to watch the gulf coast for certain incursions'?

it was reported on fox news, on the bottom of the screen, some malia members of al qaeda had already entered the country through mexico. i was worried about matters like this, especially something being released that is water-borne. host: in the "philadelphia inquirer" on sunday -- guest: when we talk about the gulf coast, pacific ocean, atlantic ocean, that is a joint effort between customs and the border security. the question, do we use drones,

unmanned surveillance? we do expect to purchase a maritime version of that. we also have a pretty extensive air force which also been told the waterways. so yes, we are watching the waterways. host: these water-functioning drones, what are their capabilities? guest: they can go quite a ways. they can operate 10 hours. they have various cameras, radars, infrared sensors, as well as maritime sensors. host: of baltimore, maryland. caller: i would like to explore

further what the previous caller was interested in. have video cameras, surveillance equipment that can pinpoint cars on city streets from satellite to? -- from satellites? i do not understand why not come under surveillance of our border between the u.s. and mexico, why we do not sweep the border and augment the wall system, which is as you said, a slowdown. it will not prevent people from coming through. tell me more about that and why we do not focus our attention on that kind of aerial surveillance of what is happening on the ground. guest: actually, we do.

we have 155 aircraft along the southwest border and we have some pilots that watch. we also have three unman devices surveiling the border. the aerial technology, while powerful, it tends to move. we need to augment that with something that can much larger areas all the time, as opposed to areas that it sweeps. so we do have aerial surveillance and we are buying other technologies to watch other areas, all the time, to complement that aerial technology. host: rick, hartford, conn. good morning.

caller: i hope you will allow me to complete my call. good morning. first of all, you seem to be portraying an image that our government is doing everything it can. it is not. it has been missing in action, we know that. we need troops on the border to protect us, seal the border and then developed the border for long-term maturity. two, you said it is not illegal to be in the country. it is not a crime to be here illegally. i heard from an attorney who had an interest in expressing in the put like that because he was going to make money.

you, sir, have just used sophistry. it is illegal to be in the country if you are undocumented, and it is illegal to enter the country illegally. for due to say that it is not illegal to be in the country illegally -- i do not know what you are talking about. you seem to be misrepresenting the facts. guest: there are two things here. it is illegal to be in the country undocumented, but it is not a crime necessarily. if you park illegally, it is against the law, but it is not yet a crime. i am trying to make the distinction between an illegal act and a criminal act. coming across the border is an illegal act. being in the country is illegal.

-- although perhaps not criminal. host: you say is illegal but not a crime, and to many, it sounds like you are splitting hairs, losing support of the people out there. guest: i agree with you, it is splitting hairs, monday national dialogue has gotten to be such. when someone says something is not a crime and there is a backlash, well, they do not know it is a crime. well, it is. then we end up in this issue. it has harmed our ability to have a rational dialogue over

this difficult topic. host: mark borkowski is the assistant commissioner at the u.s. customs and border protection agency. he has also been a program executive for robotic lunar exploration program, and the mission directorate at nasa headquarters. active-duty in the u.s. air force. add your web site, cbp.gov, you can find some information regarding the northern border project. cbp has begun a modest technology development along the border to address the needs and of vulnerability is of the northern border, maritime environment, as well as stand- alone technology that will provide immediate operational

benefit. explain this northern border project and how it differs on the southern border. guest: on the northern border, we do not have a great deal of technology. 99% of the illegal traffic that we have is on the southwest border, however, we are concerned about the northern border. in a couple of areas, we have deployed remote surveillance systems, cameras. we have about 250 of them already on the southwest border. we have begun to survey certain areas, such as the st. clair river in detroit, the niagara river in buffalo. that gives us some idea of the activity happening around those rivers without having an agency there. we also have truck-mounted

cameras that are mobile that we have deployed there. obviously, the north has a different environment and whetheweather. host: your previous work with nasa, is there anything regarding space and equipment that can be used to patrol the border? guest: certainly, there are some system that may give us capability. we also use certain space systems for communication, obviously. but the real lesson for us, a lesson for the department of defense, as well as nasa, had to do with how you develop, by the

systems. -- buy these systems. fbi net, one of its perceived failures, it is that it did not apply these lessons to the program, and we paid dearly for that. certainly, there space systems that apply, but they're also management system that need to apply as we purchased the equipment host: from cnn -- what is off-the-shelf technology, and why is it necessary to take this money from sbi net?

guest: as i discussed earlier, that is way behind schedule. border security is critical and we cannot wait any longer. there are areas where we need technology now. take that money and apply it to things that we can buy today. when we designed sbi net, we did not do the analysis we should have done to say, is this the most cost-effective way to put security on the border? are there cheaper systems that are almost as good? did we make the right decision for the use of money? the secretary took that money away for two reasons. we need time to analyze this and decide if it makes sense to buy more of it. host: give me an example of such

technologies. guest: the bulk of this money went to mobile systems, truck- mounted cameras where the driver can look at their system and respond out to other members. we have about 40 of those on the southwest border to date. they have been very effective. a good part of the money has gone to that, and we should begin the delivery of new systems here soon. host: next phone call for mark borkowski. caller: good morning, mark. i am concerned that you announced the homeland security lady is involved. you say fences do not work.

how do is to keep people of their country? correct me if i am wrong but i believe the u.s. and canada are some of the only countries that allow free movement along their border. guest: first of all, the secretary is involved. i can assure you she has been upset with our progress. secondly, i do not think i said fences do not work. i said that they do not completely stop people from coming into the country, they delay the progress. the comparison could be made with the u.s. border and others but our border is not a militarized sound. i know there are some people that believe it ought to be, but our belief is this is not a military zone, it is a border between neighbors, friends. the idea to get the rights mix

of technology, personnel is crucial. i hope i did not leave the impression that it does not work. the funds coming in and of itself, does not secure the border. in combination with people and technology, can secure the border, if used properly. host: patrick on the democrat's line. you are next. caller: i have a small business. i do some international dealings. i wind up needing many internationals who want to work with us, and i always check -- i wonder what kind of technology we really need to solve this problem? unlike some of my racist brethren who have called, i wonder why we are focusing on the illegal population, the undocumented immigrants, when

the beeper who are hiring them are far more illegal. they live in this country and they go out of their way -- tyson chicken, mining companies -- to hire illegals. they say is a pretense at americans will not do this work. i remember when you could earn $12 an hour to do this work. and then it went to $5 and if you talk, we will get you deported. we know there have been programs that have helped mexicans come across the border. we know our tomatoes cost very little because we have slave labor. to we think these mexicans come here because of the weather? are we that naive or that racist? i hate to use this analogy, but

if you put sugar in the middle of the floor and ants come to eat it, you cannot just keep on stepping on them. we need to be scooping up the sugar. host: gracie on twitter has a similar thought -- your response? guest: first of all, you both make a great point because what they are getting to is border security is about more than what happens at the border. and as long as there is a magnet that draws people in, unable to find a way to get in. that is why we struggled with this concept of immigration reform, this concept of worksite enforcement. we do have worksite enforcement

programs. there is in department dealing with immigration and customs enforcement, and it is their job to deal with the interior enforcement. they are very much focused on worksite enforcement. with respect to what happened on the border, we are still concerned, not so much about the granma picking lettuce, but people who want to do harm to this country. people who might want to bring in weapons, drugs, people who want to smuggle in other people, essentially for slave labor. those are our concerns and those people are not impacted by the kind of immigration reform we are talking about, so we have to be able to respond to all kinds of threats there is a question about the right kind of response to that. what i talked about earlier, making sure that what we spend our money on is the best use of

our money. host: conrad on the independent line. caller: good morning. i do not believe illegal immigrants, especially from mexico, are coming specifically for jobs. think about the 1990's when proposition 13 was passed in california. unfortunately, it was overturned by an organization and one judge who went against the will of the people. some of these people are coming to get on our benefits, education, welfare, and possibly

on the social security system, after they get pregnant. these are the benefits that they can take from us, and cost us in the long run. you may recall many years ago the chinese had this problem, too, and they build a huge wall. it is a tourist attraction, at this point. it would be a cheap way to maintain people coming over from the border. guest: in terms of where we have the offense, we put in in areas where we believe we need to delay folks progress. we do not have it in places where it does not do anything. in the areas that are very remote, where people would have to walk for days to get anywhere, any offense that would buy us 15 minutes of time does

not seem to be a cost-effective way to protect the border. again, we do not believe the best stuff from people coming over the border, it slows the progress and gives us more opportunity to respond. ultimately, it is law enforcement, customs and border patrol agents, who are responding to the people come across. host: lisa, eldorado springs. good morning. caller: my would like to address some issues. technology is awesome. i am 50 years old. the technology we have now is tremendous compared to years ago. we have many elderly people in this country that have gone to war, worked all their lives and

have paid taxes, and they are not as eligible for benefits, and they are suffering, to buy their meds, and we have this influx of people coming in. personally, i think bankruptcy is where this is going. you cannot pay out more than what is being put in. it does not take an economist to figure that out. we?aren't because of the drugs come on the bad things happening to the american and mexican people, why aren't we making this a military cross point? why is this not totally covered by army national guard? why is this not taking care of?

let's not be so books more and where we cannot see the forest from the trees. guest: we are using our military in one is an effective law enforcement function in the country. i think people are concerned about putting the military on the border. traditionally, we had used the military for military events, not law enforcement. the question is, do we have adequate personnel, technology, infrastructure, and it is -- is it a effective when it is applied? if he go back to 2000, we apprehended 1.6 million people coming across the southwest border. of course, more than that tried, but that was our representative

-- apprehension. this year, we expect one-third of that number and we believe that reflects a significant improvement in our ability to deal with people coming across. people are surprised to hear that often because maybe there is a sense that the border is under better control, but we believe that the tool that we use our effective. there are clearly areas that need more work. arizona notably. that is one reason why the president has said national guard to there, another 1000 national guardsmen and with the supplemental. we have found the tools that we applied to work. we probably need more of them, but where we have applied them, make a significant difference, and we intend to continue using those tools. host: karen in illinois. you are on with mark borkowski.

caller: i want to think c-span for what they tell the people. i live in a small town in the midwest. 5 miles from my house is what we call the mexican mafia. these people are coming over to have a business of their own. they do not want to pick fruit. they want a business. in that town north of me, there are five or six businesses that are manned by them. -- ran by them. i believe it is the state's fault. they need to be able to and fro what is happening in their own state. host: sorry about cutting you off, i thought you were finished.

guest: the issue is something for the courts. i think we all understand, people are here illegally and we have not been successful in controlling that. we would argue that we are continuing to make more progress. this goes to your other point. border security is not just what happened at the border. it is also about enforcement activities in the interior of the country. i suggested that we have increased resources going to that. host: talk about the increase cooperation between border protection on our side of the border in your mexican power -- counterparts. guest: we have a program coming up shortly where we will have a joint communication system along the border so we can communicate better.

so there is communication, and dialogue, there are ways that we can get in touch. typically, if there is an act of violence against a border patrol agent that occurs to somebody on the other side of the border, we have the ability to call mexican authorities to respond to it. host: gainesville, florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for the show. thank you for making a difference between criminality and illegality. at the same time, the government needs to start doing things differently.

we have a bunch of environmental problems, but at the same time, we are the ones that prefer the government in mexico and south. for propaganda purposes, we claim that the cubans can come over here, although it is illegally. if they come here, they become legal. in fact, we used to pay them to come to the united states. host: mark borkowski? guest: i think you make a good point on how complex this issue is. border security is a multi dimensional problem. it is not just about sealing the borders.

it is about foreign relations but other government. a complex problem and we often focus on just the border, and we do that at our peril. in order to deal with the types of questions that people are raising, it takes all of these other activities, in concert with border security. host: gao released a report earlier this summer, he security border initiative, dhs needs to follow through and better manage key technology programs. tell us about some of these programs that gao thinks it needs to be managed better, going forward? guest: the program i am familiar with is sbi net. many of the failures we have identified as management failures. the gao has commented on it many

times, we have made steps to improve it, but we need to better understand what we are getting into. we think we are getting there, but we are not yet there. host: colleen, new jersey. you are on "washington journal." caller: i have a few questions. what i am listening to this morning is scaring me to death, really, really scaring me. we are basically human targets, here in the new york city area. you have many people asking you why you have not put troops down there on the border. you want to maintain a friendly

correspondence with our neighbors. we also do, but we have been attacked. it was not/11 and we are terrified. that is the way we live here. we live here expecting that. to hear all these people who are frightened and terrified -- the american hiroshima pilot, he is on the moves. he has been in mexico. nobody is writing about him. he has rented a place in mexico and canada. he is the third largest threat to the country. normal.eak let's protect america. let's put troops on the border. host: there has been a lot

discussed this morning. you talk about this being in law enforcement issue. is there any thought to changing the philosophy, from making this more of the national defence issue, and might that open up the way to put more national guard troops on the border and relax the concerns of people like colleen? guest: it is a national issue, so you could consider in a national defence issue, but what do you want the military doing? there are many threats to this country. i lived in the country and i am concerned about an attack as well. threats come from many different directions and we have a variety of resources. we have the military, border patrol, coast guard. the question is, what is the right resources in the right situation? when we talk about putting the

military on the border, we are taking it away from its other functions, which are equally important, in terms of protecting us from all of these attacks. these things can come from anywhere, so yes, we have to secure the border, but we have to be concerned about over three overseas -- overseas threats. we need to have different elements to respond to different threats. the response at the border, which is affected, had been border patrol and technology. could we do that if we thought we needed to, if we thought it was the right use of resources? we probably could. we do not at this point. we believe the resources we are applying for the most effective for the job. host: baltimore, maryland. you are on with mark borkowski.

caller: good morning. that problem could be easily solved if they crack down on the contractors and everyone hiring the illegal mexicans. if there was no work form, they would not come over here, would you think? guest: certainly, we think jobs are a major draw for these people. i understand the argument about benefits, hospitals, but it seems to us the bulk of the draw is the opportunity for jobs. there is an element that is responsible for enforcing the law hiring these people. there is also technology available and there are a registration kind of programs where employers can check whether or not the people there

about to employ in the country are here illegally. there is a supporter of enforcement, but it is going to have to grow. eliminating the drogba eliminates a large part of the problem. that is part of the totality of the approach to border security. >> how much of this program involves reaching out to members of the community to get them involved? how far does that go? guest: it does involve reaching a lot to the community. when we built the fence, we have all kinds of open houses and town halls. it was a very controversial things. and in some areas people wanted fence. in other areas, they did not want id blocking their view of the rio grande river or their use of the park or farmland.

we expect to do more. one of the things that the secretary directed when she directed the reassessment was >> we go surely to those white house briefing room where robert gibbs will hold a briefing shortly. in the meantime, let's take a look at an earlier statement by president obama from the rose garden.

>> good afternoon, everybody. i just finished a meeting with my economic team about the current state of the economy, and some additional steps we should take to move forward. it has been nearly two years since that terrible september when our economy teetered on the brink of collapse. at the time, no one knew just how deep the recession would go, or the havoc it would wreak on families and businesses. what we did note is that it took nearly a decade -- what we did knkow -- how are we doing on sound, guys? we did know that it would take nearly a decade -- can you guys still here rest?

let me try one more time. we did know that it took nearly a decade to dig the hole that we are in, and would take longer than anyone would like to climb our way up. while we have taken a series of measures and, long way since then, the fact is that too many businesses are still struggling. too many americans are still looking for work, and too many communities are far from being whole again. that is why my administration remains focused every single day on pushing this economy ford, repairing damage done to the middle class over the past decade, and promoting the growth we need to get our people back to work. as congress prepares to return to session, my economic team is hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference and those

promoting growth and hiring in the short term, and increasing our competitiveness in the long term. steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year. redoubling our investment in clean energy and research and development. rebuilding more of our infrastructure for the future. further tax cuts, to encourage businesses to put their capital work here in the united states. i will address these proposals in the weeks to come. in the meantime, there is one thing that we know we should do. something that should be the first order of business for congress when it returns. that is making it easier for our small businesses to grow and to hire. we know that in the final few months of last year, small businesses accounted for more than 60% of the job losses in america. that is why we passed eight

different tax cuts for small businesses, and work to expand credit for them. but we have to do more. there is currently the jobs bill before congress that would do two big things for small business owners. cut more taxes, and make available more loans. it would help them get the credit they need and eliminate capital gains taxes on key investments, so they have more incentive to invest right now. it would accelerate $55 billion of tax relief to encourage american businesses, both small and large, to expand businesses over the next 14 months. unfortunately, the bill has been languishing four months, held up by a partisan minority that will not even allow us to go to vote. that makes no sense. the bill is fully paid for. it will not add to the deficit. there is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics. the small business owners and

committees that rely on them do not have time for political gains. they should not have to wait any longer. in fact, just this morning, a story showed that small businesses but hiring and spending on hold while waiting for the senate to act on this bill. simply put, holding this bill hostage is directly detrimental to our economic growth. so, i asked the senate republicans to drop the bottom. i know that we are entering election season, but people expect us to get things done and improve the economy. no single step is the silver bullet to reverse damage done by the bubble and bust cycle that caused our economy to fall here. it will take a full-scale effort, attack that not only helps in the short term, but builds a firmer foundation to make our nation stronger for the long haul. this step will benefit small business owners and our economy

right away. that is why it must get done. there is no doubt that we still face serious challenges, but if we rise above the politics of the moment to summon an equal seriousness of purpose, i'm confident we will meet them. i have confidence in the american economy, and most importantly, in the american people. thank you very much. >> president obama talking about the economy, tax incentives, and small business legislation from the rose garden at the white house. we are waiting to hear shortly from the white house spokesman robert gibbs who will give a briefing to reporters, possibly touching on more of these economic issues. in the meantime, we turn to an

earlier briefing at the state department today. the deputy to the special groupism live for afghanistan and pakistan briefed reporters on flood relief efforts. >> we thought we would once again bring in our intrepid team to update you on the u.s. international response to the flooding in pakistan. dan feldman is a special represent for both afghanistan and pakistan, and carol is also a deputy director of an agency. >> thanks. i just want to give a quick update about the current status of the floods. as well as the usg response to

it, and to highlight three areas. the second is the private sector contributions. the third is the strategic initiatives,ns and niches ste particularly launched in the third week. the waters are finally receding, including in punjab. there are enormous health concerns about stagnant water, and shelter. the situation is deteriorating in a given place where 6 million have been replacethis place. in terms of the usg response, we have kept you updated on heavy airlift capability we have undertaken. the u.s. military and civilian

aircraft continue to support. they have been flying the last few days. today these aircraft have evacuated close to 9000 people. they have delivered more than two and a half million pounds of relief supplies. we estimate the civilian and military in-kind assistance is now at approximately $15 million. there was also an announcement

over the weekend that we would come close to doubling the amount of lift capacity of helicopters. we have 15 in theater now. we are deploying another 18. we will rotate out some currently there. altogether we plan to get 30 operating. that would be in the next 10 days up to two weeks. the needs are still dramatic. we continue to try to meet them aggressively. let me move on to the three areas. the first on international assistance. so far, over 60 nations have committed over $700 million. we now calculate the united nations initial response plan is about two-thirds funded, 64%.

but obviously, as the response moves from the relief phase to early recovery, and then to reconstruction, we calculate the needs will be vast. we will continue to look, do our own assessments, and have ongoing ones by the world bank and other entities. we will continue to work actively with the international community to ensure we try to meet those needs. we have highlighted some specific contributions and the past on the lift side. afghanistan has provided four helicopters, japan has three on the ground, three more on route. the uae has dispatched three helicopters as well as an airplane, and turkey has contributed a c-130.

nato has begin missions as well using aircraft. they delivered nearly 8 million tons of supplies donated by slovakia last week. they have two more flights having happened in the past couple of days. it has been facilitated through german government contributions and others. we continue to work closely with them to make sure this applies get there as quickly as possible. the notable contributions over the past week, not only from eu, australia, canada, germany, but also from algeria, jordan, uzbek a stand, china, russia. -- uzbekistan. there will meet again on the

19th as a follow-up to the session held 10 days ago. on the private sector update -- the u.s. business sector coordinated by the civic leadership center has provided over $8 million in assistance to pakistan. some 50 major companies have contributed it directly or by in kind contributions. some of the larger ones include $1 million from coca-cola, some from sheraton, bp, procter and gamble, including water purification tablets, and money from pepsico. many have employed an employee- contribution drives. we continue to encourage those by the corporate sector. this will also be working with the pakistan relief fund, as announced by the secretary under a special session 10 days ago. that fund will serve as a

platform to raise the profile, bring together as many different parties making contributions as possible. and continue to amplify contributions. we are looking at a range of high-profile events, including celebrity events. lastly, on the strategic communications front, we had an aggressive effort to promote communications not only in the u.s., but in pakistan to better disseminate information. when dr. shaw was their last week, he launched a new initiative for flood updates. >> we are expecting to hear from robert gibbs. >> good afternoon. let's begin with one very quick schedule an update. on monday, september 6, 2010 -- labor day, president obama will travel to milwaukee, wisconsin where he will attend the milwaukee libber fest organized

by the milwaukee area labor council, and make remarks there on the economy. more details on the exact time of departure later. >> two big elements of foreign- policy in play this week. those the president think that the combat missions thatiraq will affect the prospect for peace in the mideast? >> first and foremost, throughout the president's town in the white house -- as you know and remember, one of the first things he did upon walking into the oval office was to initiate calls into the region about a lasting, long-term peace process. we have always believed it was in the interest of those in the region to sit that long term,

lasting peace, separate and apart from any other regional issues. i think the white house continues to believe that is the case. i will say, and you hear this a little from the president tomorrow, as we are ending our combat role in iraq, there are additional national security priorities, and additional domestic priorities that we can and will be focusing on. >> is there any connection between the conflict in iraq lane the groundwork for going into these mideast peace talks? >> part of it has always been in the best interest of those involved to seek lasting peace. that has been our belief since

the beginning of this process. if anything, the two represent long-term commitments that this president and white house have made, and sought through to the end. on iraq we are completing a drawdown of almost 100,000 troops. even when the president walks through a plan in the camp, many did not think it was possible. in terms of direct talks, it is obviously the beginning of a process. >> his visits with troops today and tomorrow -- he is obviously grateful for their service, but how we speak to them about their mission in iraq when it is one that he disagreed with from the beginning of the? >> you will likely hear this

again to moderate evening as before -- regardless of whether you agreed with the decision to go not, and as he said there are patriots who were for going into iraq, and those opposed -- the president always believed, and his mission was, finishing what we had to do to get our men and women out of there. not to read-litigate what happened in 2002, 2003, the first to focus on 2009 to change the direction of the mission. look, regardless of whether you are opposed to or for going in back in 2003, that does not change his role as commander-in- chief in talking to -- and i think lifting of the amazing

contributions of those in our military that continue to serve our country so well. obviously, walter reed talking to those who have been harmed -- and i think you'll see in tomorrow's events at fort bliss, and ultimately lifting of all those who served many who served up to four missions in a very dangerous area. >> the president clearly believes the timeline for withdrawal is an achievement. but how will he avoid this in the debt as a mission accomplished moment? >> you when i hear those words coming from us. tomorrow marks a change in our mission. but it marks a milestone that we

have achieved and removing our combat troops out. that is not to say that violence will end tomorrow. we understand those who would foment violence will continue to do so. i think it is important to remember -- as you said, this is a commend the president made, and will keep. what it also means is that this redoubles the efforts of the iraqis. they will right the next chapter in their history, and be principally responsible for it. we will be their allies, but the responsibility for the future of iraq first and foremost belongs to the iraqis. >> the president will host the launching of the middle east peace talks this week, but it

will be threatened by the september 26 the expiration of the moratorium on the israeli settlement. what is the white house doing to avert a crisis on that point? >> i should have mentioned at the top of this -- tomorrow near 10:00 a.m. it is our hope to have special envoy george mitchell here to give some, an update on where we see the talks and what we see moving forward, as well as what we think the president's schedule before wednesday prior to the secretary of state hosting the bulk of those talks on thursday. so, we are focused in terms of the middle east on september 1 and second -- it is very premature to get ahead to later

in september, the 26, before we focus on what will happen this week. that is, the parties in the room discussing the issues that can lead to long-term peace. we have always said the best way to work out these issues is sitting at that table negotiating them. that is what the focus will be. >> is the reason the president is not pushing for a bolder move on the economy because he does not believe there is one, or because he does not think he can get it through congress? >> i think you will hear the president, and you have heard him today, after meeting with his economic team -- and you will hear him over the course of the next several weeks outlining a series of ideas, some of which

are stuck in the congress, and some of which we continue to work through the economic team, that will be targeted measures that continue to spur our recovery, and to create in a garment in which the private sector is hiring. >> [unintelligible] -- someet's understand of you probably saw this article today -- the small businesses sit in a holding pattern. they have put hiring an expansion on hold as they wait out the vote on an aid bill that stalled in the senate earlier in the summer. as the president said, 60% of our job losses have come from small businesses. they are waiting for the senate to act on a bill that would cut their taxes and provide them degree to loans and investment

opportunities with which to expand. the republican party talks a lot about their support for and help for small businesses -- the question the present gave them today is, then why are you standing in the way of something small businesses acknowledge would help with hiring and purchasing and expansion? >> do you, those the president think there should be bolder moves taken beyond the $30 billion initiative? >> jake, i think the president mentioned several ideas today that he believes are important to continue that recovery, that we will pursue. these will be areas and initiatives targeted toward spurring the recovery and creating an varmint toward hiring. >> does he believe it is the

right approach, or the only politically possible approach the? >> there is no doubt there are, there is only so much that can be done. >> not having to do with politics? >> not having to do with politics. >> do you think the stimulus is too small? >> it makes sense to step back for second. i think we would be the first to admit that nobody had in january 2009 a sufficient grass at the sheer depth of what we were facing. -- grasp of what we were facing. that is true for a virtually every economist to make predictions. you -- the chart i generally

show -- adding a job losses for the last three recessions does not get you to the job losses we have seen in this recession alone. it took us a long time to get to this point. we got here not simply because of one thing, but because of many things. we have seen the housing market collapse. we saw what happened to the credit markets, what happened to the stability of our financial system. all of that accumulated after many years into one big pot hole, the size of which any stimulus was unlikely to fill. for all of the political back and forth on recovery act, there is -- there should no longer be any doubt despite some capitol hill non-believers that what the

recovery act did was prevent us from sliding even into a deeper recession with greater economic contraction, with greater job loss then we have experienced because of it. there -- what is there to say tomorrow beyond the obvious of i kept my promise? how will you hold that up as an example for afghanistan? >> i think the president will focus on several things. he will outline for the american people what is involved in the job dodddrawdown. the missions that have been changed, the number of troops moved out, and where that leaves us. obviously, someone asked the mission accomplished question. there is still work to be done.

that is in terms of the political formation. vice-president joe biden is there to help now. he will meet with some today at walter reed and tomorrow at fort bliss, and that think he will put this into a bigger context of what the drawdown means for national security efforts both in afghanistan and in southeast asia, and throughout the world as we take the fight directly to al qaeda, as well as the priorities we must address here at home. >> will he hold up the iraq experience as the template for afghanistan? >> i don't know if that is in the remarks, but i will check.

>> he may not want to take too much credit. >> i am not entirely sure they are equally analogous situations. not the least of which because of the emphasis that was ultimately put on iraq -- we do know it took away from the emphasis that needed to be put on afghanistan. the president said that throughout the campaign even as he kept his commitment to get us out of iraq as soon as he could. >> the president talked about how on economy there is no magic bullet. is there any frustration that he has not been able to convey a more optimistic message to the american people? >> how so? >> we have seen that americans still don't feel good about where the economy is gone. is the frustration that no

matter what the president says, but people still do not feel good about where the economy is going the? >> i think those in america are frustrated, and those in the west wing are fresher. as i mentioned earlier, there was not one thing -- there was not one switch to flip, and then the economy would get better overnight. we not get into this problem over a short period of time. it will take awhile to get out. we want to see the economy expanding more rapidly and hiring taking place at a greater rate -- absolutely.

that does not mean the president will not continue to focus on how we get there. >> is another stimulus out of the question is? >> i think you'll hear the president outlined over the next several weeks what he and the team is important in terms of targeted initiatives. to create an averment where the private sector is not just investing, but hiring. -- to create an environment. >> have the israelis or palestinians given any assurance to give the administration to believe this time it might be different? >> i don't to get into negotiations before they begin. each side has had to take some important steps to get us to this point, which leaves the

administration to believe the sides are serious. that is not to say this will be easy. this has been tried over the past more than three decades a number of times. i think it will take some time to get through the issues. we will send out a notice on having ambassador george mitchell here. >> yesterday the president said the economy is still growing. when economists look at gdp numbers they see low numbers where it is growing compared to zero. >> no, but as compared to a

negative number. that was when he was elected, and came into office. >> but his policies were not only passed by congress, but in full force. >> no. we did notstand, just with up at 4.9%. i don't have that the figures for the fourth quarter of 2008 or the first for 2009, but -- >> what accounts for the last three quarters? >> one thing discussed today

were the signs for why that is. there is no doubt we have seen, as throughout the world, that there were concerns earlier in the summer and late in the spring about europe, certainly greece and other countries having had a negative impact on world growth since then. >> last night the president said we anticipated the recovery is slowing. when did that take cold? >> you have heard the president discuss over the past several months when i just referred to -- >> when did that take hold ?

anticipating that the recovery would slow? >> i would have to go back to see the first time when the president started to mention in his public remarks what was happening in europe and greece. but i don't think anyone would argue with you that it did not signal that the economy was on a different trajectory. if you look at where we were earlier in the spring and later, then early in the summer, there is no doubt the trajectory of recovery was not headed at the same vector as it was earlier in the spring. >> does the president did you will continue to go down without new ideas on the table? >> the president and team discussed what needs to happen to insure that we get out, and

lessen the chances for something like that happening. >> how those at the extension of tax cuts for the middle-class fit in there, pertain to the timing? >> we're having some technical audio difficulties here. look, i think the president has mentioned for many months his commitment to extending beyond their expiration on december 31 the tax cuts that impact those making less than $250,000 per year as an important signal for our economy. >> some economists say the sooner that the president says that, the better. it would have more effect in the national economy than this

package of small business tax cuts. does the president believe so? >> sorry? >> if you acknowledged the tax cuts to the middle-class sooner rather than earlier? >> major, while there is no one magic bullet, i don't think -- the president does not view cutting taxes for small business and increasing their ability to borrow and expand competing with middle-class tax cuts. i think you were the president say today that quite honestly we can and we should do both. an important signal to the economy would be for the senate to pass the small-business bill and let the president sign it, as well as extend the middle class tax cuts. >> before congress recesses for

the elections? >> i think the president hopes the small business cuts will pass as soon as possible. and i think it is important to extend the middle-class tax cuts, to signal that we will, as soon as we can. >> do you expect the tax cuts for the wealthiest -- to help small businesses? >> 2% to 3% of small businesses of would be impacted by tax cuts that stuff that those making $250,000 or less. i think it is important to

understand what the trade-offs are. they are, depending on how long you extend the upper end tax cuts -- they get very expensive. $30 billion for next year, $700 billion for 10 years. alternately you have to ask yourself if you are an economist or an advocate of extending those tax cuts. if you are republican in congress they become and the theme of to what you have been talking about -- cutting spending -- the become anathema. it does not exactly fall in line with cost-cutting and budget- crunching. secondly, you must ask yourself, is the thing you can do to provide the greatest stimulus to

give effect to the come extending tax cuts for those who make above $250,000 per year? the cbo looked at between 10 and 12 different ideas for tax cuts, and found the least stimulus of thing would be to extend the tax cuts for those who make $250,000 per year. if you are making more, if you are a millionaire in this economy, i don't think you have hit on vastly hard times. >> has the president asked his economic team to come up with new ideas? >> he has brought the past several months, and today went over different ideas and proposals, some of which are new -- yes. i think you will hear the president discuss a series of these ideas over the course of the next several months.

>> in terms of dealing with the economy -- his hands are tied it, not because of economics, but because of politics -- and do you think that a second stimulus is advisable, but he does not feel he can get it done? >> the president has asked the team to look a full series of ideas, all of which he has asked them to ensure have some greater, stem the tide affect on the economy. part of the debate -- if you're going to debate the bush tax cuts, if there are 10 different ideas to use the $30 billion that would go to those making more than $250,000 per year, wouldn't you want to put that amount in a category that was more stimulative than anything else?

obviously, the answer to that from our perspective is yes. there is a whole series of considerations. the president wants to hear from his economic team and from others on the best course of action. >> do you think that he will call president bush before the speech tomorrow? >> i do not believe there are plans to see him, but my sense is that it will be one of the calls he makes tomorrow. >> the president once the new ideas considered by congress before the recess. >> he will outline the ideas. >> [unintelligible]

>> yes. >> piecemeal, or all at once? >> [unintelligible] this is not an academic exercise, yes. >> last week the court threw out the stem cell policy. with the white house like to see congress act of this year to overturn that decision the? >> let me get some guidance on the legislative -- in terms of an appeal, you are likely to hear something from justice today. and let me find more guidance on a legislative staff. >> is the white house concerned that this will send a message to

people whose concern is the economy that the white house is not focused on the economy as much as they would like, what with the peace talks and the drawdown in iraq? >> this is a good example of why that it will not work. about just talking americans -- the big news as they see from the white house is about what is happening in other countries. >> people throughout the country have a sense that the president is, and has to do more than one thing at a time. that is the nature of the job of the presidency. just as he had a meeting about the economy today, it is not to say he did not also have a meeting about intelligence. when he meets on iraq, it does not mean he is not working through the ideas on the economy.

it is more than one topic per day. >> robert, following up on something you said earlier about the iraq speech, how will the new strategy affect taking it to al qaeda? >> obviously, you have seen -- and i will let the president talk about this tomorrow -- you have seen a commitment to taking our fight directly to the leadership throughout the world, all over the world and in different places, be it in and around africa, southeast asia. the president made a commitment to increase the tempo of that fight, and that is what he has

done. >> the rally here over the weekend -- following up on something about that, the theme. does the present think there is anything about it to be concerned about? >> i would point you to what he said yesterday in the interview. we live in a rich and beautiful country that -- and a dummy rich in terms of wealthy, but in terms of diversity of opinion, with the constitution that affords anyone an opportunity to speak out, and have a rally. that is the duty of the united states of america. >> anything about the country's

honor that he feels the need to s to be restored by? >> brad his campaign, and throughout his time in the white house -- throughout his campaign, and time in the white house, he has fought to restore values that lay an economic foundation for long-term growth. i doubt that if you polled everybody, people would say there's something they would like to restore. we would like to restore the american dream, a vibrant middle class -- one that is growing, and able to pass the notion of this american dream on to their kids. >> thank you. in searching for new things to do on the coming, did he talk to

fed chairman ben bernanke and the last couple of days or weeks? >> i don't know the answer to that, but don't believe that is the case. >> when he said this morning, talked about the additional measures, a ticket that he is talking beyond middle-class tax cuts, be on the package for small businesses, and be on the infrastructure for clean energy? >> the president wants the economic team to look at a host of ideas. summit beyond that he mentioned it in helping to spur our recovery, and to create an environment for private sector hiring. >> in before the election? >> you will hear about this over

the course of the next many days and weeks. i have not heard that talked about it. >> is going to mention president bush in his speech tonight -- give him any credit the? >> i have not seen the final draft. >> does he believes president bush deserves any credit for laying the ground for troop withdrawal of? >> i would point to comments the president has made about the role that increasing the number of troops has played just add a sunni of which team has played. the president will get a chance to talk about a lot of that. >> when it comes to next year, the sec any flexibility in the agreement about leaving troops beyond next year? >>, will not focus on next year

yet. >> it was mentioned in a radio address over the weekend. >> i have not seen the latest draft. >> how about the last draft at? >> i will save that for tomorrow. >> does the president believed that the surge worked? >> i would point to the same comment that i would point anne to --that the president always believed you would change part of the security situation by vastly increasing the number of troops. but the president was criticized for this throughout the campaign -- that is saying that we were not going to accomplish all of what needed to be done in iraq simply militarily. there had to be a political accommodation.

if you look at what happened with the sunni awakening, there were a host of factors that led us to a point at which the president can make good on his commitment to take almost 100,000 combat troops out of iraq, to fundamentally change our mission there, and for the iraqis to take the lead on security, politics, and their future. >> could you elaborate briefly on what he intends to say to president bush tomorrow? >> i will not preview the phone call. >> to what extent does the president talk about his belief? that afghanistan is the correct war? >> as you heard him discussed

during his campaign, the commitment made iraq made without a doubt took the emphasis and commitment off of afghanistan. in many ways, we're having to make up for years of that -- years of not having the type of necessary number of forces in a country that poses an actual threat i think the president will mention this is not a speech about afghanistan. >> why the oval office? what does that setting do for the president in terms of talking about iraq? what does this say about his broader vision, broader than iraq for afghanistan for

america's position? >> setting the president will discuss what this now means for our international security and for our interest and where we go from here. without any doubt, the oval office, this has been over the course of the past eight years, this has been one of the biggest of the single biggest issue that has dominated the past 18 years. it is important to hold up. it is important to hold up the efforts of those -- whether you work for or opposed to the invasion, our men and women in uniform who undertook the command of their commander in chief and should be held up

uncelebrated for what they have done in allowing combat troops to now come home. >> i would be happy to circulate the president talked to comment. they go back to 2007 and then go back to the that is a day -- go back to 2008. we can do that after the briefing. >> house republicans are measuring the drapes and looking at committee investigations. they're looking at bailouts. what is the strategy on their part? >> have had it. i am happy to answer a series of

questions of what is going on. it is hard for me to look that far in the future. >> what do you think they will do when they win back the majority? >> this is unrelated. the american people want to see two parties that can work together and moving our country forward whether it is on iraq, afghanistan, were from four in our economy. that is what the president will be focused on for the next many months. i think that is what the president would expect everyone to be focused on over the next -- >> two questions. there have been talking with the first-time home buyers tax credit. there have been talking about the housing market. is that a new measure he is considering? >> that was something that was done originally. while i have not seen, obviously, a final list i think

bringing that back is not as high on the list as many other things are. >> the ap reported that stanford university professor clarence jones preserve death doctor came's attorney said on saturday that he believes that dr. king would not be offended by the glenn beck rally and would be "pleased and honored." does the white house believe that professor jones was wrong? >> i think he is asking me if i could in turn spurred the remarks of an advisor to a civil rights leader that passed away in the 1968. that would make it three years prior to my birth. >> you have a long memory. >> i have had very few

conversations with dr. king that would imparts me the wisdom that i could -- >> so you want to evade the question? >> i have absolutely no standing with which to offer a comment on a stanford university professor who formerly advised martin luther king that i presume last spoke to him early in april 1968. >> what is the white house reaction to u.s. news and world report's about zuckerman's description of the obama administration that it is "the most fiscally irresponsible administration in u.s. history"? >> you have a boundless curiosity one could say.

with any reading of what has happened over the past eight years, i think you can see what decisions were made to guide us into the fiscal method we are in. they were not the decisions of the obama administration. you cannot invade iraq. you cannot go into a afghanistan for 7.5 or eight years with an endless open-ended commitment and not have a way of paying for. you cannot have a prescription bog -- prescription drug benefit and not pay for. you cannot have a 10-year tax cut that will cost $2 trillion and not pay for and expect that the fiscal situation in the country will get better. when the previous administration came in, there was a $200 billion surplus and when they left there was an american

express bill for $1.30 trillion. >> i have two questions. >> is this about stanford? [laughter] >> is the point that the president's intended -- cracks which point? >> your last point about president bush and the republican economic trajectory of spending. >> again, that is my opinion based on a series of facts by which i have just outlined. we did not go from in january 2009 a $200 billion surplus to a $1.30 trillion deficit. that happened over the previous eight years. >> do you expect we will hear the present to expand on that? >> i think you will hear him

continue to discuss it. quite honestly, if you watch television you would think, i think it is somewhat eliminating to watch john boehner in the roosevelt room with the president. they started talking about the fiscal impact of the bush tax cut. boehner said, "mr. president, you and i were not here for what." and he said, "not only were you here but you voted for it." there has been a lot of amnesia about the actions of those in the previous eight years. >> on iraq, to the president consider delivering to marmite's speech from iraq? did he decide not to because he

needed to be here because it is too dangerous? >> no. i do not believe there was ever a serious discussion about delivering what the president will deliver tomorrow from iraq. obviously, the vice-president is there. he is there because of the continued work that has to be done that has to make progress on the political side. an election was certified in june and a government that has yet to be fully formed continues to require the work of this administration, particularly the vice-president. >> i have a similar question about the search. -- the surge. in the final analysis in understanding, does president obama still think the country and the world would be better

off if the u.s. had never invaded iraq fax -- iraq? >> if the president had been president during that time, we would not have gone. obviously, that is the way the president felt. he said that in a speech in 2002. he repeated that throughout this year. i will leave it at that. yes, ma'am? >> they will meet over dinner. >> i do not have the schedule in front of me. we both go over some of this tomorrow. as i understand, over the course of the day on wednesday, the president will host a series of bilateral meetings with

netanyahu, abdallah, and others. there will be a leaders meeting at the residence. the next day, the secretary of state will host the formal talks themselves. the president will have an opportunity to see each of the leaders individually as well as at dinner. >> will we get a statement from the president on wednesday? >> i believe sometime late in the afternoon you will likely hear from the president on where we are. >> first, does the president have any reaction the calls for alan simpson to be removed based on an email he sent?

>> senator simpson scented e- mail that he has now apologized for. we regret that he said that email. we do not condone the comments. senator simpson has and will continue to serve on the commission. >> the president said is not surprising [unintelligible] what portion of the country is the talking about? what is he referring to? >> i did not speak with him about the meaning behind that statement was. >> finally, during the bush administration, there were constantly asking for a definition of what victory would look like. is this what victory looks like? >> i think we are used to thinking about victory in a war.

we are used to the pictures of some type of ceremony on a battleship at sea. i do not think you are likely, based on the wars we are involved in, i cannot think you're likely to see the scenarios. what you will see tomorrow is the changing of a mission. you have seen nearly 100,000 troops leave, millions of equipment the, hundreds of bases have been transferred to the soul consult -- the sole control of the iraqis. they will be in charge of political and military decisions and we will be there to support them. i do not believe that this is not something where you will see the type of formal ceremony that we have seen in the past. david? >> i just wanted to know if you

could circle back on beck. >> related to iraq, with the president was campaigning in 2007, he said the war in iraq has that made us safer. he said it was a series of terrible decisions and that is one reason we are not safe for now. yet last week when he gave the video saluting the troops, you think of them for helping keep america safe for to the troops in iraq. i was wondering if you could join those statements. he said when i was campaigning that the war did not make us safer. >> i would have to look at the exact statement and the video. with the president alluded to in 2007 and with the president would tell you now is that the decision was made in 2003 to dedicate an unlimited amount of resources to focusing on iraq

rather than identify or focus on the problems we had in afghanistan and pakistan. i think he had heard the president say that is not the decision he would have made. you heard the president the critical of the lack of focus and resources in afghanistan. i think that is in many ways why we are where we are in afghanistan today. >> when you talk about the economic advisers to the president, looking at ideas for creating new jobs, targeting measures, is he considering tax reform options? the business roundtable often said that if you lower corporate tax rates, that you could create an environment -- >> first and foremost, first, broadbased broad scale tax reform is probably not going to

happen overnight. if you have a desire to cut say, taxes on capital gains as it relates to small businesses, there's a bill pending in the senate to do exactly that. if you want to improve the environment as it relates to taxing small businesses, walk down to the floor of the senate and vote yes on the small business lending bill. you would have to ask why the republicans and the groups like the chamber, the nfib, and others are where they are and why they are encouraging senators to do this? >> i think one of the issues was the limiting amendment. >> again, and limiting amendment is one thing. what always happens is that 60 is the new 50, right?

the need to get 60. there are not 60 democrats. if republicans believe in cutting taxes for small businesses, if republicans believe that small businesses are the engine to drive the economy to create jobs in the best way to demonstrate that support is to support cutting the taxes and giving them the ability to borrow more money and expand. yes, sir? >> is the president willing to call on the democratic leadership to allow more amendments on the bill? >> i think one thing more amendments is what you say when you are just trying to drag things to a halt as many in the senate republicans have tried to do throughout the year. >> does the white house agree with the remarks of the weekend that the u.s. was not even going into iraq, did not understand, and has made things worse -- that the u.s. was naive going

into iraq? >> i think that there is no doubt if you look back to the debate in 2002 and in early 2003, there's no doubt that there was a series of miscalculations that were made as we got into iraq. there was a fairly robust debate on the number of resources that would be needed to undertake what was being undertaken. i think an economic adviser or two lost their jobs by insinuating that this may cost more than $50 billion. they would probably give that guy the nobel prize for economics today. we were going for that kind of money by the end of may in any year given the tremendous commitment we had. i do not think there is any

doubt that the way we went in and the type of resources we went in with that we made some pretty huge strategic and tactical errors. >> robert, two questions. anything on elizabeth warren? >> i do not expect an announcement with either the consumer orcea -- or cea this week. >> we have some ecumenical leaders meeting this afternoon in part in response to the stabbing of the cab driver over the weekend who was muslim. there have been other incidents around the country. two questions. is there anything that the justice department or the obama administration can do with circumstances like this in reality? more importantly, what is the white house's reaction to an incident like we saw over the weekend. >> let me get some better information from the department

of justice and get you a better answer. >> there is nothing in general? backs -- >> anyone in this country that is targeted for come as you heard the president say, targeted for violence because of who they are, what they look like and how they talk, with their sexual orientation is is not in keeping all with the value system have as americans. that kind of violence, as a society we must do everything humanly possible to prevent it. thank you, guys. >> winehouse spokesman robert gibbs answering questions today regarding the withdrawal of u.s. combat troops from iraq.

president obama will also talk about the withdrawal tomorrow night in an address to the nation scheduled for 8:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that live for you here on c-span. join us tonight when we will have this weekend's rallies from washington starting at 8:00 p.m., glenn beck and sarah palin's restoring honor rally. after that, reverend al sharpton, -- as a rally called, "reclaiming dreams." the president to oftivo and fx on dvr's and the impact they are having on the television industry, viewership, and advertising. that is tonight on c-span2. >> the c-span network to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available on television, radio, on line, and

on social media networking sites. find the content any time on line to the c-span video library. we go on the road with our digital bonds, bringing the resources to your committee -- your community. the seas and resources now available in more than 100 million hong secreted by cable and provided as a public service. >> associate justice sonia sotomayor took questions from students at an event earlier this month at the university of denver law school. she talked about obstacles she has faith in her career as a hispanic woman and a woman. she spoke about the recent supreme court decision on miranda warnings in which see dissented. she speculated the release of national security information by wikileaks would eventually come before the court. president obama appointed justice sotomayor or in 2009. she's the first hispanic member.

this is about one hour. >> welcome. thank you all so much for being here. before we get started, please turn off for silence all of yourself funds. -- all of your cell phones. i'd like to think our co-sponsor in this, the colorado campaign for in clause of excellence. the ccie has been a true leader in increasing inclusiveness in the legal profession in the colorado and a nationwide. i would like to thank the many people who have made this possible including the associate

dean and the event planners. thank you to everyone who has made this happen. [applause] if you ever doubt if you ever intellect, hard work, and good, old-fashioned human decency can carry you to the top of the competitive and prestigious professions, you need look no further for inspiration than justice sonia sotomayor. she grew up in the bronx public housing process -- project. she attended high school, then princeton and yale law school's on full scholarships. -- schools on full scholarships. she excelled in high school debate. for those of you who served on various law reviews -- you have

heard my pitch on the benefits of this -- justice sotomayor was an editor on the yale law journal. she served as district attorney in the new york city -- district office. she did commercial litigation in new york, first as an associate, then as a partner. in 1991, president george h. w. bush appointed her to the u.s. district court to the southern district of new york, and then in 1998, president bill clinton elevated her to the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit. in 2009, psident barack obama appointed her as associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. a telling insight about the justice comes fm one of her former clerks who came to speak to us yesterday. the clerk pointed out that the justice loves kids of all ages.

she sees in them all that is possible and all that is great about us. that is why she is here -- to inspire all of us. please join me in welcoming toast it -- a welcoming justice sotomayor -- in welcoming justice sotomayor. [applause] >so, thank you. let me tel you a little bit about the format. we will begin with questions from five denver-area student leaders at the center microphone. after their questions have been answered, we will open the floor to questions from all students. to make sure we get a good cross-section of studio audiences, we have divided the floor into blue, green, pink,

and yellow. alternate from section -- we will alternate between the sections until the hour is up. our students will make sure each section can get to the microphone. sarah will keep us on track. i will now turn the floor over to our first question. thank you aga, justice sotomayor. [applause] >> can i just say thank you to the dene and everyone else who worked on putting this wonderful event together -- dean and everyone else who worked on putting this wonderful event together? and do all of you who are here -- you touched my heart in a deep and profound way. i thank you for taking the

time to share this moment with me. i wish you could stand here in my shoes for a few minutes and look out. it is an absolutely are inspiring feeling he -- awe- inspiring feeling to be standing up he and having you looking up at me. it is a little strange. the whole year for me has been filled with strangeness, but a nice strangeness. each moment has had a measure of magic that i could not repeat that any other moment. thank you for coming today. anyway, let's start with the first question. if you cannot hear me, tell me. i am usually loud enough. my friends do not complain. [laughter] >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. my question is, how was life different living from the bronx to princeton university?

>> the first week i was in princeton, i spent virtually every night looking for the cricket who was making noise in my room. [laughter] the only cricket i had ever seen was in a cartoon about "jiminy cricket." i knew it had long legs and made bad boys. i took that route apart every single night. -- room apart every single night. on the weekend, one of my friends came to visit me. i told him about the credit. he started to laugh. he told me, it is not in the room. it is on the three outside the window. i had never -- on the tree outside the window. i had never had a tree outside my window. i felt like i was in an alien

land. that is how often described it. it was totally different from anything i had ever experienced. first of all, i do not know if you have se pictures of princeton. if you have not come and go on the inteet and look. it is made up of gothic -- collegiate gothic architecture. it is like it is out of a storybook. there is grass everywhere, trees everywhere, big, beautiful buildings. you almost feel like you're somewhere in europe, walking through four or five centuries ago of history. the people who are there are so different from me. they were from different parts of the country, many from across the world. many of them had experiences that i had only heard about. they took spring vacations in

the bahamas, in europe, and they had read books that i had never even heard of. "ulysses." i have not heard about that when i was in high school. i started to read it and i almost fell asleep. the public is that i was different. i came -- the poll -- the point is that i was different it took a lot of work to make a life for myself in that environment. did i feel completely apart of princeton when i had left? i had mastered princeton by all traditional criteria. you may know that i graduated pretty high in my class and received a very prestigious honor their. i had done everything that was expected of a person going to a

place like princeton. did i ever feel completely comfortabl do you ever? when you are that different? i am on the sreme court today. i am one of nine extraordinary people. i did not include myself in 993 the other eight are just brilliant. every morning i get up -- in i that nine. that nine. -- i do not include myself in that nine. that nine. the otheright are just brilliant. every morning i get up and know that i can just keep meeting every challenge. eventually, i will become comfortable enough to say, even if i am a little bit different, it is ok. i guess that is where i am now. it is ok. thanks. [applause]

>> they know? ok. >> i am a freshman year at the university of denver. in high school, i was on the the 18 -- debat team. i was curious about your experience with debate in high school and how that impacted your education and how it impacted your eventual nomination to the supreme court. >> i do not know how your debate competition goes on. when i was in gh school, we would show up at a local college somewhere -- not so local. once we traveled to buffalo, got snowed in, and decided i wld never go north for college.

and i did not. you went into a big room. you were paired into teams. you were handed the topic and the side that you had to argue. you had 15 minutes to organize your thoughts and then the debate started. that exercise probably assisted me in every stage of my professional life as a lawyer. the moment, as a lawyer -- even a person in almost any profession, that you can see both sides of an issue, that you can muster the best arguments on either side, and come to a resolution as a debater or a lawyer or a judge, in terms of

making a choice after knowing what all of the arguments are, and understanding them,hen you feel that you are making a right decision. there is rarely are right or there is rarely are right or wrong answer -- a right or wrong answer. what -- people wonder why the law is not clear. the law is clear. human behavior is not. that is what the law addresses. the activities, relationships of people. anytime you're dealing with that -- when you are applying that conduct to law, it is never quite black and white. as far as me as a judge goes, and my career, it has always been, have understood all of the arguments on each side? have i fully appreciated what both sides are trying to say to

me? and have by then come to a conclusion that i think is commanded by -- i then come to a conclusion that i think is commanded by the law? being on the debate team was the foundation of that learning for me. for all of you o are debaters, it is important, not just if you want to be a lawyer or judge or justice, but in all of your relationships. you can deal with people by being passionate about your own views, but sensitive to what motivates other peopl what their views are, why they think of it is important, you can improve your relationship with them. [applause] >> good afternoon, justice

sotomayor. thank you for coming to our school. i'm the president of the student bar association here. as a law student, will ask a legal question. since miranda versus arizona was decided in 1966, a long line of decisions has eroded productions persons facing police interrogations' enjoy. -- protections persons facing police interrogation enjoy. there is a heavy burden to prove that someone has waived miranda. there is a warning that any statement can constitute an implied waiver of miranda rights. you wrote a passionate dissent. do you believehat a majority of the court has expressed the view that the protections of miranda are essentially no longer necessary? in other words, are the purposes

of miranda protection -- thiss what the law school has done to me. [laughter] in other words, are the main purposes of the miranda protection -- to pvent coercive interrogation -- no longer something the court is concerned about? thank you very much. [applause] >> i am glad you recognize what law hool did to you. [laughter] for all the young lawyers in this audience -- or young lawyers to be, when i start talking to my law clerks about legal research, the first thing i tell them to do is to explain the problem to me whout using one word of legalese. i say to them -- because what happens often to lawyers is, you start using legal terms and you forget what they mean.

often, if you look at what the legal term means, it gives you a pretty clear answer to whatever question you are looking after. i am not accusing you of that. i am going to translate, i think, what your question meant. [laughter] for the students who did not read it. the court, in the case he mentioned, was faced with the question of whether or not a defendant who had remained silent for a number of hours during police interrogation -- whether he had waivedis right to remain silent when a police officer came up to him and basically asked him whether he had asked god for forgiveness for the murder he had committed. he shook his head yes. i am simplifying the tax

greatly, but those are the essence -- the facts greatly, but that is the essence of it. did the defendant, after hours of not saying anything, when he spoke, waived his right to silence? what the majority basically held -- again i am simplifying things for this conversation -. it is always dangerous to do this. he should not take this as a complete explanation. you should always read it. for the purpose of your question, the majority held that, if the defendant knows of his rights, in this case, it was a clear finding by the below courts and that the defendant knew he had a right to remain silent. if he speaks in the face of that silence, one could assume that

he waived his rights. th is, in essence, what the majority said. i descended -- dissented on the prior that the court's cases had demanded that a waiver of the right remained silent -- a waiver of the right to remain silent had to be more explicit. a defendant had to say, yes, i'll waive. i want to talk with you. your silence was not proof of a waiver. there were cases that had said that in the history. do i think that the majority is revoking miranda? no. one of the most interesting things i was given by justice souter, whose seat i took on souter, whose seat i took on the court- in one of our

first conversations, he said, this job will be eminently easier for you if you except that the people -- accept that the people you're working with our people of good faith. you may digree with them, but each of th is doing what they think is right under the constitution and the law. you may think they are right about their conclusion, but if you did not ascribed evil motives to them -- do not ascribe evil motives to them, you will find that the disagreement is something you can engage in with passion and respect. what do i think? i think that i was right. [laughter] i dthink they were wrong. some people on the court joined

me in saying they were wrong, but not -- it was not done out of an intent to undo miranda. they're holding was that the person who knows their right and chooses nevertheless to speak as made a statement. they believe that. this is a question of your perspective and what you think it works best in terms of your vi of the constitution and its protections. [applause] >> hi. i am from denver south. >> what is that? high school, college? >> high school. cultural issues such as immigration and religious tolerance often make it to the court.

should the court considered the political culture of the nati in various decisions? >> one beauty of being a justice for life -- which all federal judges are -- is that we're charged with not considering the political views of the time. we're charged with looking at the constitution and what belongs command -- the law commands. it is difficult to answer that question in the abstract. there are situations in which a certain dangers -- searches and seizures, for example. we have to make a determination whether certain police conduct in searching either a person or place is reasonable. how do we draw our conclusions on reasonableness?

in part, by thinking about what the situation is. under what situation are the police officers doing the confronting? what are the experience ishe society has had -- experiences the society has had in those kinds of confrontations? is it political? no. it is a societal situation that we take into account. there are other questions where it would be completely inappropriate for us to look at what the society's political reaction is because the constitution says you cannot. we do not permit laws that abridge freedom of speech. that is not an absolute law, because there are restrictions to speech that we permit within certain circumstances and not in

all. if you are a judge or justice in that situation, you have to be careful to put aside the political views and look at what the law commands you to look at in making your choice. with respect to the situations you are talking about -- religious freedom and immigration law -- i am sure some others did it will ask me my views on those. clearly, i cannot give them. first of all, i have not really examined the arizona law in detail. i have seen what you have seen in the newspapers. i have not read the arguments. i do not know what the other courts will do. i have not formed an opinion yet and i will not until i hear the case, the same with other issues that involve religious tolerance. there is an important issue involved in these questions that

all of you have to bear in mind. by the time the case comes to the court, it is because some dynamic in the society has had a confrontation. it means that interest groups in the society have done something either to create an law or to create a situation that is going to impact another group. that is why waiting for the courts to resolve these issues is not what all of you should be doing, whether you want to be lawyers orot. just to be good citizens -- we should all be actively involved in shaping laws that get past, it involves -- get passed, involved in changing them when we do not agree with them. waiting for the court to do that is giving away your rights of

citizenship. citizenship means participation in theevelopment of our law, our society. for all of you here, there are big and important issues, critical to many communities. i do not know what the answer is. you, individually, may not know what the right answer is, but you have to work at finding it together. you have to work hard at either passing laws that you think to the right thing or changing those which you think to the wrong things. don't wait for the court. start the process much earlier than when the confrontation develops. [applause] >> afternoon, justice sotomayor.

i am a senior here. i am applying to law school to pursue a career as a corporate attorney. what challenges did you face as a corporate litigator, both in general and in terms of your ethnicity? thank you. >> i could give you pat answers. i will try to give you a more direct one. what i found when i moved into the corporate world was that my greatest problem was that i did not have access previously to people in places of power so that i could make the contacts to get the business that i needed to develop in my firm. a complicated concept, isn't it? law firms are businesses. they need clients.

how do people make clients? they usually make them from people they know. generally, not always, but often, the people you grow up with, the people that you go to camp with, the people that you do things with -- they are the ople who become your business leaders -- t become business leaders working in corpore settings. through those relationships, they bri new business. when you come from a background like i do, where there was not that corporate familiarity, it becomes harder to make those inroads. obviously i develop some of my business from my contacts at princeton and yale. those and garments let me meet those kinds of people. -- those environments let me meet those kinds of people. a lot of my friends in the law firm were -- had clients who

were people they grew up with or were the parents of their friends from school. i developed my business the different way. you'll learn how to do that when you e challenged and cannot do it in the traditional way. i took the clients that the firm had and figured out what additional business i could develop with those clients. i took three of the firms bigger bigger clientsm's and i developed areas that they had not had with the firm previously. that is what got me the partnership. you have to be creative in meeting challenges. in terms of entering the corporate area, that was the biggest disadvantage i found. i know that i have spoken previously to other student groups about writing. the biggest challenge that most

students -- not just minorities, but frankly the entire population has --is an understanding that the persuasiveness of lawyering is not the argument you make in the court. getting up and talking to a judge -- it really does not matter how articulate or inarticulate you are. if you have a stron case and you have made a persuasive case in your papers, you are going to win. that i probably true about almost anything you do it as a professional. you persuade in your riding. -- in your writing. that is the task that every student has to spend most time on, in my mind, learning how to write tightly and concisely. that takes a lot of effort. i've talked about what i did in college to improve my own riding.

-- writing. i went to the biggest bookstore in new york and bought grammar books from first to 12th grade and spent the whole summer reading ose books to teach myself how to write right. i still work at it. it is not natural for most people. it takes practice to do well. if i were going to talk about a second structural challenge to success, it would be improving my riding -- writing. [applause] >> thank you. the next question will come from a student in the ue section. good afternoon, justice

sotomayor. sotomayor. i'm a senior at abraham lincoln high school. it is an honor to ask you this question. in your remarks on may 2000 -- may, 2009, you said and the along the lines of, "are at -- our founding fathers have set of principles. times have changed, and so have the principles." what your beliefs about the words "all men are created equal" and calling illegal immigrants "aliens"? in what direction is immigration reform heading? >> it was the declaration of independence which spoke about all men being equal. they did not mean all men,

because they excluded blacks and excluded women. it was not all people are equal. obviously has changed. we have grown into a society borne ferom -- from brown versus board of education that it does mean all men. we have grown through legislative -- not constitutional -- actions -- st people do not recognize this. most of the change in equality for women came through legislative reform. the right to vote. the court followed with requiring equality of women in e workplace and in other fields in other ways. it was not just the constitution. it was the law that opened the

door for women. what will "all men are equal" begun to immigrants is a more complicated question because of the constitutional power over immigration that is given to congress and the president. a chan in that area is likely to beat a little slower and -- be a little slower and require much me legislative action ben court action to b, top be frank. to the extent of the country is focused on this, it requires more meaningful conversation about that principle. what do we, as a country, want equality to me in this situation? there is no clear answer in the constitution. we will find it more in its principles and in the country

having a conversation about how it wants that issue to look. [applause] >> the next question will come from a student in the green section. >> i come from thomas jefferson high school where i am a senior. what gave you the motive to become -- to accomplish all the things that you have? >> i am the most stubborn person you can imagine. [laughter] i really mean that. when i was little, my family used to talk about me being so hard-headed.

i know how to work and compromise on issues between people. when it comes to me and doing things, i keep getting knocked down and i will just keep getting up. when i was 2 years old, i did not like eating. i used to bunch up my cheeks like this to shut them so my mom could not show the spoon in -- shove the spoon in. my mother would p her hands around my cheeks and forced it down my throat -- force it down my throat. we would do that for hours. [laughter] every time i did something that she thought i was wrong, she would put me in one of the timeout corners and say, come out whenever you change your mind.

i would sit there forever. she would have to give in to call me to dinner. these are not great qualities. [laughter] i can assure you she did not think so when i was little. there is an essence to thedea that every time you get knocked it down, you get up and try again. that is sometimes really hard to do. when you get embarrassed over failure -- that happens to me -- you get embarrassed and you want to walk away. there is nothing more degrading to yourself thanhen you feel you have been embarrassed. and yet, getting up and saying, ok, how my going to not let

this beat me? what do i have to do to me this work? try again. go a different way around it. that is what has helped me succeed. i do not often tell this story. when president clinton nominated me to the court of appeals, i was not certain i wanted to go. i loved being a district court judge. i was not sure i wanted to leave being a trial judge. a lot of people started putting up resistance to my appointment. [laughter] one day, i looked at a bunch of my friendsnd i said, why am i fighting so hard for a job i am not even sure i want? i answered my own question by saying, if they had not fought so hard, i would he given up earlier. i could not let them beat me.

as i said to you, that is hard to say to people. when you fail, it is just tough to try again. it is really worth it. you will eventually get through. [applause] >> thank you, your honor. now, a question from a student in the ping exception -- pink section. >> hi. i am and 8 greater -- an eighth grader. how did you feel when president obama nominated you to be judged on the supreme court? -- to be a judge on the supreme court? >> let me tell you what happened that day.

i got up at 6:00 in the morning to go to the white house. i was going to get ready to go meet the president and have him announce my nomination. as i walked into the room where we were going to meet the president, my whole faly was there. they had been brought from florida and syracuse to the white house. we were sitting around. i was hugging and kissing everyone. the president and vice president walked in. from that moment till almost today, i have been living a fantasy. i have often said i keep waiting for someone to pinch me and wake me up. i do not really want them to, but i keep imagine it is going to happen any moment now.

when i walked from the back towards the podium, it was like my whole body started floating in space. there was sonia walking and talking and getting kissed by the vice president and the president. i was totall shocked. it is impossible to describe what a moment like that is. i heard the president talking about me, saying things did not even know. [laughter] and it was the most exhilarating, the most incredible moment anyone could ever have. the most special part of this whole process, for me, and i say this to you so that you go away from this experience with me

today aspiring to reach a moment like that for yourselves. despite all of the wonderful things that had happened to me, perhapshe most terrific was perhapshe most terrific was watching my younger brother cry on television. [laughter] do you know why? i knew he loved me. i never knew he loved me so much. if you have a momt in your lives where you can share a special event with your family and look at them and look at the joy they are getting and the joy they are feeling for you, it really is the most touching

part of this experience. when i say watching my brother cry, what i mean is learning how deeply he loves me. i hope you have that opportunity to feel how much they love you. to feel how much they love you. [applause] >> next queion. >> i am a senior at th contemporary learned academy. thank you for the wonderful opportunity that you have given us today. the odds you have overcome our extraordinary. -- are extraordinary. what advice would you give to

young people who feel they are being held back by their financial situation? thank you. >> i do not want to be flip, because i do not intend to. but i actually believe in getting into debt for education. for me, there is nothing more important long-term, then getting the best education that you can add whatever cost you -- at whatever cost you have to pay. that often means getting more loans than you think you can afford, and working more jobs than you think you can do, but i do not think there is an opener to doors in this society greater than education.

education open your eyes -- opens your eyes to the world and it lets you fly without a plane. it lets you experience the world in a very direct way, because it lets you think about things more deeply and more sensitively then you could on your own -- than you could on your own. it is about learning things you would not seek or experience in your everyday environment. you cannot let money hold you back. it means sacrifice. i actlly started working when i was in high school, during my freshman year summer. i worked summers and all year round. i worked for two years at two jobs, even on a full

scholarship. i know it is hard and tough, but you just cannot let it get you down. you have to do a lot of research on looking for every financial assistance out there. i got a scholarship from the new york state rehabilitation society. ands a juvenile diabetic i did not know that i qualified. i applied and got it. who would have thunk? i didn't. i was researching every scholarship. i found out my local church had a scholarship, so i tried for it. was not big money. it was small amounts that added up. that put me through college. [applause]

>> good afternoon, your hono i am a junior. i was wondering what was your main goal that you wanted to achieve by becoming a sreme court justice? what do you want to most influence? thank you. >> when i was being prepared for my senate hearings, one of the questions i was asked was, when i die, what is the legacy that i want people to talk about? th is the one preparation question that i had the most difficulty with. i will explain why.

i am one of nine. i cannot actually influenced the develoent of any area -- any specific area -- influence the development of any specific area unless i can convince others to interpret them in the way i think is right. to talk about a legacy in a particular area of law is not something i am equipped to do. so, if it is not a change in law, because we did not make it, we interpret and apply it, then what is the legacy i could leave as a supreme court justice? what i came to, in terms of answering that for myself, was i hope that, at the end of my legacy, people will say to me

that she was a justice that people understood and knew appreciated their problems, and that the decisions i reached were always based on a principle based in law. if i can be known as someone who respects law, then i can teach others and guide them into what is happeng in our society. is happeng in our society. if i can understand the issues they are involved in, i will have fulfilled my legacy. [applause]

[applause] >> good afternoon. i am from the denver center for international studies. i am a jew near there. i am a jew near there. -- i'm a junior there what is the bgest sacrifice what is the bgest sacrifice you have had to make in your life and why? >> this is getting more personal than you may want. [laughter] it was taking this jobhen i know that i am on the tail end of my mother's life. for those of you who are young year, you probably cannot appreciate that.

my mother's health is not perfect and i know that. she went into the hospital two days ago in florida. i am not there. i knew that the responsibilies of this work were likely to keep peace -- keep me from spending as much time with her as i would want during this stage of her life. that has been my biggest sacrifice. [applause] >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon.

>> there is -- as i said to you earlier today, there is no black-and-white line. it is all very much a gray area. how much the courts will permit, but congress to go in terms of was that it passes, each a statute will raise a different set of questions and a different set of balancing. there is no clear answer to your question.

>> i go to palmer high school in colorado springs. i was wondering, in your use, did you experience agrees to profiling -- did you experience racial profiling? if so, how did you overcome that? >> not in the way that many others do. i have a white skin tone. that is really helpful to avoiding profiling. it is not likely -- i came over the border with a friend many years ago and she was a mexican- american citizens from

california and we were in the car together and they stopped our car and the onl one the pullout was hurt. -- they pulled out was hurt. if that was because she was dark skin. -- as they pulled out was her. that was because she has dark skin. i have an understanding of what the larger society's expectations of me are. so, i have understood -- it was very painful on the court of appeals and on the supreme court nomination process

those are challenges that are hard to talk about or quantify. it is one that occurs. i have many incidences when i was growing up, being with people like considered friends, who would see someone on the street and make a racial comment. i remember being a halt -- at the home of a high school friends and we're watching the porter rican day parade -- i got up and looked at him and said, those people? they are my people. i get up and left the house.

those kinds of attitudes are ones that do require you to sort of work harder at succeeding. there is no question that you have to prove more are when you are working against people stereotypes' about you. that is okay because there is nothing wrong with working harder. did not take it as a burden, but two accepted as a challenge to do better. that is the hardest part to me. not to be angry at its, but to accept it and say, this is the way it is. i will have to work harder. what i do will be better because of it. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you for being here. >> joined us tonight when we will have this weekend's rallies from washington. 8:00, glennk, -- at beck and sarah palin. watch that tonight on c-span. tomorrow, president obama will address the nation. his topic is the withdrawal of combat troops from iraq. he will speak from the oval office and we will have live coverage for you starting at 8:00. t. bove president tom rogers -- on theent's tonight

communicator's on c-span2. >> tonight starts science and technology week on book tv prime time. of future with total recall. stephen baker on the computer scientists and mathematicians who want to predict the manipulate our behavior. but tv in primetime tonight on c-span2. they provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non- fiction books, and american history. is all available to you want television, radio, online, and on social media networking site. find our content any time that the c-span video library. it is washington, your way.

created by cable, provided as a public service. [no audio] >> gentlemen, we appreciate you

coming before the subcommittee today to offer your testimony. as you know, your entire statement will appear in the record. we would ask you to summarize your statements in approximately five minutes and then you can give an opportunity for myself and other members of the subcommittee to ask questions and to follow up. >> the status quo for our industry is clearly unacceptable. it is extraordinary and insightful that this industry has lost some

$60,000,000,000.150001 jobs in the united states in the last 10 years. delivering the worst financial performance of any major industry along with 186 bankruptcies over the last 30 years. both before and after deregulation, this industry has been systematically and capable of earning even a modest profit, let alone a reasonable return and a large investment that we have made an aircraft, facilities, and technology. it is ironic that this industry, unable to cover its costs of borrowing, is expected to be and must be a key enablers of the

country's economic recovery. as leaders, you all know the critical role our industry plays nationally in the committees that you represent. creating commerce, tourism, jobs, and contributing to the overall economy. regardless of one's personal perspectives, we can likely all agree that serial bankruptcies and the asset distribution of failed companies cannot be an acceptable and is a strategy. we must create economic sustainability through the business cycles. our objective that unita has been very consistent -- united has been very consistent to put our company on a path to profitability. without profitability, we cannot

provide a stable environment for the employees mentioned. we cannot maintain service to communities, large or small, or invest in customer service, nor can we create a value for our shareholders. to be profitable, we must successfully compete in global markets of today. a very different market than the market of 10 years ago or the market of 30 years ago. today, low-cost carriers are very well established across the united states. at southwest airlines will continue to be our country's largest domestic airline in terms of number of passengers carried after the united- continental merger. today, in the marketplace of today, international competitors have emerged.

today, the world's largest airlines measured by revenue -- air france. it with more of the -- with more than two-thirds of trans-pacific capacity provided by foreign carriers. united and continental have taken significant actions to improve our performance. competing across both international and domestic markets and at the same time finding a way to connect small u.s. communities into our combined initiative. in this dynamic environment, these actions have not been enough. our proposed merger is a very logical and essential next step toward our objective of sustained profitability. let me be very clear.

without this merger, we would not have the $1 billion to improve products. and to improve service for our customers, nor would we have the financial means to create a better career opportunities for our employees. we would not be as successfully -- as successfully competitor that we need to be to enable economic development across the country. our merger enhances service for those who rely on our networks in nearly 148 small communities and metropolitan areas. providing business lifelines to those communities that would -- they would otherwise not have. carriers compete vigorously on both price and service. our merger will not change that reality. there is significant low-cost carrier competition at every single one of our hobbs -- hubs.

over the last decade, ticket prices across the united states have declined by 30%. adjusted for inflation. are expected revenue synergies are derived from better service and an expanded network. they are not based on fare increases. this represents excellent value and more destinations for consumers across the country. consumers will benefit to from intense price competition across the industry due to the prevalence today of low-cost carriers, other network carriers, and fear transparency. the competitive landscape has changed. to be a company that tracks and provide value for customers and shareholders and employees, our

two companies also have to change. we are creating a leading global airline with a platform for a healthy company, a profitable company, that can compete and the realities of today's global marketplace, provide job opportunities, and provide vital connectivity for the many customers and communities that we serve. thank you very much, mr. chair. >> the chair recognizes -- >> good morning. i want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and the members of this committee for the opportunity to be able to be here. this merger is good for employees, communities, consumers, competition. let me start with employees. the volatility and instability of the airline industry have had harsh effects on employment. before 9/11, continental had over 50,000 employees.

today, despite being the only network carrier to a brownson's 9/11, we have less than 41,000 employees and we have lost over a billion dollars. before 9/11, united had over 100,000 employees. today, it has about 46,000. after we merge, our employees will be part of a larger, financially stronger, and more geographically diverse carrier. this carrier will be better able to compete in the global marketplace and better able to withstand the external shocks that his artistry with disappointing regularity. because of how little we overlap, the merger will have minimal effects on the jobs of our front-line employees. we're committed to continuing our cooperative labor relations and integrating their work forces and -- in a fair and equitable manner, negotiating

contracts with our unions and refer to the employee and to the company. united has to union board members and those union board members will continue after this merger. the merger will also enable us to continue to provide service to small communities. as a result, over 200 small communities are served only by network carriers. we plan to continue service to all the communities we serve. including 148 small communities. the merger will be good for consumers as well. the combined airline will offer

consumers with on parallels global integrated networks and the industry's leading frequent- flier program. it will have the financial wherewithal to invest in technology, acquire new aircraft, and invest in its people and its products. we will have a yawn and fuel- efficient fleet and our new aircraft orders will permit us to retire older, less fuel- efficient aircraft. continental brings to the merger is working together culture of dignity and respect and direct, open, and honest communication. this culture caused an environment where employees enjoy coming to work every day and as a result, i give great customer service. united brings to the merger talented employees for delivering industry leading on- time performance. the merger will also enhance competition. continental and united have highly complementary route networks. our networks are so complementary that we have

minimum overlaps, each of which faces significant competition after the merger. over 85% of our non stop u.s. passengers have a direct low- cost carrier alternative. low-cost carriers compete at all of our hubs at airports adjacent to our hubs. air fares have declined by 30% over the past decade. we also face significant competition from foreign carriers, which themselves have merged to create attractive global networks. the merged continental-unita will enable us as a u.s. carrier to compete effectively against these large foreign carriers. in -- the merger will create a strong financially viable airline that can offer good paying careers and secure retirement for our workers, great customer service, and

reliable service to communities. the merger will provide us with a platform for sustained profitability and position us to succeed in the highly competitive domestic and global aviation industry, better positioned than either of us could be alone or together an alliance. thank you very much. >> the chair thanks you. let me start with a few questions. in my opening statement, i expressed my concern and you have heard from the both the members to testified here before us today and i think every member of the subcommittee is concerned about the employees at both airlines. what happens to them? we know what has happened in past mergers and we urge your testimony that there will be minimal affect on the employees. you stated in your written testimony that any necessary

reductions employees will become from normal attrition, retirements, and voluntary programs. can you make a commitment to the subcommittee that, in fact, the combined work force if the merger does go through, that there'll be not -- that there will not be layoffs? >> i could speak certainly to the effect of the merger despite all of the external shocks that this industry has experienced that have resulted in the numbers that just shared with you. the decline in the employment. this merger will not have a negative affect on our level of front-line employment. in fact, it should give us the opportunity to grow.

>> glenn is correct. in any merger, overhead jobs, there is only one ceo. there is only one c.f.o.. there is only one general counsel, etc. there will be reductions and headquarters jobs than there would be in any merger. but the vast majority of jobs and because we are so complementary, we do not expect any significant affect on employment on front-line jobs. >> in the delta jet-northwest merger in 2008, when they announced the merger, they also indicated that the pilot union had reached an agreement prior to announcing the proposed merger. is there a reason why this was not done in this merger with the pilot union's? >> let me speak to that.

>> can you pull the microphone closer to you? >> this merger came together very quickly. we learn that united airlines was in negotiations to move with another carrier. united was the right strategic partner for continental, so we needed to moved swiftly and we did so over about a three-week period. that suspense was such that the processes for reaching collective bargaining agreements -- we could not move that swiftly. we are in the process of working together with the pilots union and hope to reach a joint collective bargaining agreement promptly. it is my strong desire to reach an agreement as promptly as possible without workers. >> it is mine understanding that both united and continental

unions for the -- for a special committee to discuss potential merger issues in 2008. you just indicated basically that there was not enough time, that this can about quickly. if they formed a committee in 2008 and this proposed merger comes to years later -- two years later, can you explain that? >> it is probably fair to say that the attention of our pilots union were largely focused in the runoff to his 3 engagement with myself on another transaction. during that period of time, we did not have any further conversations relative to a merger with continental. we were having the discussion with another company.

our pilots union had a very distinct point of view about the difficulties associated with that transaction potentially and they were focused on the issues associated with that transaction rather than this one. that is just a reasonable thing to have that happen. let me be very clear. they also made it clear to me that they preferred this transaction rather than that one. but we were not preparing for it, mr. chairman. >> some united retirees and other stakeholders have made noted the fact that both of you have indicated that the merger would generate $1.2 billion in shed its and sensince obligation for pensions in bankruptcy, they're wondering if there is any hope that employee pensions might be restored would

be merged carrier. they want to know how they will be affected. >> you may recall that during the bankruptcy, the action taken relative to the benefit plan was taken by the we did that was at their discretion. along with the decision to guaranteed the defined benefit plans that they assumed responsibility for was a condition that it not be restored. we replace those pensions would defined contribution plans. we find ourselves and our situation where the companies have slightly different retirement plans. but work together to make sure that the retirement plan to put together are the best they can be. the short answer to those who lost their pensions with the bankruptcy, how will they be affected? >> that will be unchanged. the current retirees, there is

no provision in the merger that will affect the plant of current retirees. -- plans of current retirees. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you very much. the number one job of our committee is to ensure that safety for the traveling public is observed. some -- thed out flight from newark to buffalo. $60 billion of losses since 2001 as an industry put a lot of pressure on the whole system we have the most remarkable safety record overall and i hope that

you are committed to maintaining that. but it has to be hard and put the lot of pressure in frigid on front-line employees and others -- a lot of pressure on a front- line employees and others. i just wonder if you could comment on any effect this would have. we are working on legislation to try to pull its standards in place. but the resources are not there at the end of the day, it is difficult to maintain the standards. could you talk about any implications that this might have for the safety or the traveling public for the safety of employees? >> safety is always the number one priority of continental airlines and will be the number one priority of the combined

united. i would also like to, in honor of the families who are here today, express my condolences today for their loss. it was a tragic accident and saddened all of us in the industry. this merger will not affect safety. safety is important before the merger. safety will be importing after the merger. certainly, having a profitable carrier is something that one would rather have than a carrier that consistently makes losses and in eking out a hand to mouth existence. no matter what level of profitability or loss, we are always focused on safety. that is the most porn thing in the aviation business. >> regardless of how a few dollars there may be, $1 always goes to safety.

you make an excellent point. i do not think that anybody in the room would conclude that an economically fragile industry is a benefit to safety. that cannot be good. there is no way that anybody can suggest that that is a good thing. our view is that the more economically robust the new company can be, the more resources we can dedicate to everything that is important to all of our constituents, including safety. we have a relationship with our regional carriers that is a partnership and safety. we share best practices. we conduct safety audits. we hold them to a higher standard. we value the fact that they appreciate that we have available to them at united a standard of safety that is a

benefit to them. we're in a position to do that. >> i wonder if you could expand on this -- you touched on this briefly. we face a very robust international competition, many of the in some ways with a more favorable environment because of government support or whatever and less competitive domestic markets. could you discuss how we tend prevents -- what we can do -- how this merger will affect our international possibilities for competitiveness? i know we have alliances with international competitors, but we do not want us to end up the

international takeovers. we would like to see american robust competition. >> we cannot agree with you more. the majority of our competition across the head lentic, across the pacific are foreign carriers. we face competitors who have served the traditional positions of network carriers to be, the number one and #two carriers in global markets. in latin america as well. we do think this company will give us the opportunity to do

that. >> that is correct. this is a global business and we need the global scope and a global scale in order to effectively compete. what we are finding is that large carriers, especially large foreign carriers, offer a greater scope and a greater scale than we do and they are picking off our passengers one by one. at continental, we are a business oriented airline. where we make our money are on our business travelers. we orient our service toward that. these large foreign carriers are being very successful in taking our passengers and by combining, legal be able to be in a position to better leave it to compete effectively with them and continue to compete in the united states against the robust

competition that we find ourselves with today. >> the chair thanks the ranking member. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from texas. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have not taken a position on this merger, but i am very concerned about what most passengers are concerned about. that is the employees. in your joint testimonies, i use big that customers will have access to 116 domestic destinations and their small communities will continue to be served. that sounds good, but to will be serving these communities? do you intent to subcontract out?

i would like to of both of you comment on that. >> let me address that. this merger will be very good for our employees. it will provide them with good jobs, careers and not just jobs, a secure retirement. it will provide us the synergies that will permit us to continue to invest in our employees. i have made it very clear that the wealth creation of this merger that i intend to share that with all workers, whether they are unionized or not. in terms of service to the communities, we allocate the aircraft, the larger jets, depending on the demand of the routes. for smaller markets, we often use a regional affiliate's that we contract with it because those routes cannot bear a large mainline the aircraft.

we will continue to do that. but what matters the most is the air service because those regional carriers have employees as well and they will benefit. >> thank you. >> the reason that the low-cost carriers do not serve those communities that you referred to is because they do not have the flexibility of access to the aircraft. so 737's will not be flying to north dakota to connect passengers to denver. but are geddes' well. that is how they will get to denver and get onto wherever

they will be flying domestically internationally. that is the way that the networks work. for the most part, the low-cost carriers will not offer service to those communities if we were not in a position to economically do so. >> thank you. i am much more familiar with continental that i am with the other airline. you have built a reputation in the last 10 years of having a culture that is very supportive of passengers and the employees seem to be quite pleased and happy. when you combine the pilots and continue this merger, what will be your position on the pilots of 40? will they come together prior or do you plan to -- >> so, congresswoman, i have

only been in the industry for fewer than eight years. some of that relative to 10 years, i was doing something else at the time. our pilots leadership is going to be given the opportunity to speak to their views of this combination and extent to which they perceive it to be a benefit to the pilot profession and the two combined pilot groups. in answer to the questions that we had previously, although it has been a relatively short period of time, they have had a good bit of opportunity to come together and to discuss their ambitions for the combining of their work groups. on behalf of jeff and myself, they have done a very good bit of work in a very short period of time. i know they will share that with you when they come up here next. that has made -- that is made

easier by the fact that there are represented by the same union. across the other spectrum of our work groups, the two companies have different unions representing work groups, such as the flight attendants and ground workers and mechanics. the first order of business is going to be a determination of which union ultimately is going to represent those professions in the new company. the workers are going to have to decide. they will have to choose between the different unions. that is something that will have to be sorted out. the pilot group is not going to have to attend to because they are represented. >> thank you. i am basically a passenger, as you know, like the majority of the american people. when i get on an airline, i want to be sure that the pilots are

happy and healthy, that the attendants are happy and healthy, and that the plane has been serviced appropriately. where do you get those planes service and maintain? >> you and me both. we're most interested in safety and the professionalism of our crews. our aircrafts are serviced by a combination of our own employees and outside contractors. we used g e, rolls-royce, goodrich. we is a number of very professional companies. we are very focused on maintenance for dispatch reliability as well. making sure that when you get on the aircraft there is not a problem. you and i share the same desires and as a result, we are very focused on all the things to a point out. across the united states,

airline maintenance organization is represented by the international brotherhood of teamsters. we have a large maintenance base in san francisco, a significant made in space. also represented by that labor union. we also have made sense partners worldwide -- maintenance partners worldwide. we are a global carrier and we use the opportunity to have our maintenance performed all across the world. >> do we coat -- code share across the world? >> yes, we do. >> you mentioned that there would not be any changes in the front-line employees. what about the back line? >> you are referring to the

headquarters. in any event -- and any merger, there are efficiencies as a result of job redundancies in the headquarters jobs. we will have the typical efficiencies in any merger. there will be reductions in jobs, both in houston and chicago. there will be jobs that will move from houston to chicago and there'll be jobs that remain in houston. but the vast majority of jobs will remain as they are today because we are such complementary carriers and we have so little overlap. the front-line employees are largely unaffected. the number of headquarters employees affected, that will be relatively small number measured against the total number of employees of the combined carrier will have. >> how will you handle of the

people that you have to cut? >> we always prefer, at -- we are also for employees whose jobs are affected, we will assist them in finding other jobs. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you very much for holding this meeting. i want to say that i support this merger in the strongest possible terms. i think that my colleagues, once they have the opportunity to review all the facts and the situation, will also agree with me. the merger of these two carriers will create a much stronger, much more sustainable airline that will be better able to survive in a struggling economy.

it will enable dramatically new investment in products and services and result in much more efficient flight operations to more destinations. it is something that i -- something that no one can dispute in something that we all want to see. i share the concern of some of my colleagues about the impact of the mergers on the workforce. i think you have entered that adequate lead and put it very well. -- adequate lead and put it very well. there should only be a negligible impact, as you said. the merger will have a tremendous benefit in my state and i think that is great, but more importantly, it will have a tremendous benefit for a vacation in the united states of america, which has been under assault. the numbers of declining employees have been declining employees have been declining since december