>> the 111th congress ended earlier this month and all week and c-span, we are looking back at the farewell speeches for departing members and the new faces coming in to replace them. we will start at 6:30 p.m. with the outgoing intelligence committee ranking member and then the man who is taking his seat. at 7:25, the outgoing transportation committee chairman. that is a farewell and welcome speeches, coming up tonight on c-span. during prime time, starting at 8:00, we will take a look at executive power and its limits with former independent counsel,

ken starr, and john yoo. then at 10:00, the new york times bureau chief, john burns. then, garrison keeler, talking about human -- humor in public life. >> an extraordinary experience for me is coming to an end. but my dominant feeling is pride and the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for a farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library, with every c-span program since 1987, all on line and all free. it is washington your way.

>> now, bill kristol and a forum on a limited government, hosted by "new criterion" magazine. this is just under one hour and 40 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we have only a few hours to raise and dispose of some very

naughty problems. i hope we will be able to proceed with that prussian efficiency which the iron chancellor advocated. one comes time for questions and responses, please go to the microphone in the center of the room and say who you are and address your question or comment. as your program will have intimated, i'm the editor of the "new criterion." i would like to welcome you to this conference on the wisdom of the founders and the ideal of limited government. i'm not sure whether there is a more pressing topic facing the republican out and the future of limited government. but before we begin, i would like to take a moment to thank the organizations and individuals that made our deliberations possible. first of all, i would like to thank the thomas w. smith foundation, without whose generous support, we would not

have been able to put this conference together at all. the smith foundation is a conspicuous friend of liberty and we are honored and grateful for their help. we are also grateful for the important contributions of the hon. bruce gelb and others. these are economically perilous times and we are fortunate indeed to have such committed code-collaborators. those of you -- co collaborators. those of you interested will find some interesting literature about "the new criterion" in your folders. let me repeat what the voice of the one who assailed senate austin said -- take it and read it when you have an unoccupied moment. finally, i would like to thank my colleague who is your summer. her expert logistical interventions -- that's a fancy

way of saying she organize the whole bloody affair and without her we would be holding this outside without the benefit of tables and chairs, central heating and so on, not to mention the prospect of lunch at the appointed hour. the wisdom of the founders -- what was that wisdom? i believe ronald reagan -- ronald reagan articulate a central part when he observed democracy is less a system of government than a system to keep government ltd., an intrusive, a system of constraints on power to keep politics and power secondary to the important things in life, which resources of value found only in family and faith. whether what reagan says is true of democracy itself is something we might want to question. too often, democracy has been

praised to deformations that encourage rather than retard the growth of government. that, indeed, was part of what the founders had to go through as they foundered for a new model -- a new model for america. but reagan was right when he talked about democracy rightly understood, democracy constrained and redefined by the founders. let me begin by acknowledging a certain irony. we will be talking a good deal today, and praising, i think, the ideal of limited government. the founders, to be sure, were deeply concerned to protect individual and state rights against the prerogatives of the federal government. for example, james madison, antifederalists 45, explicitly declared the powers delegated by the constitution to the federal government were few and defined.

having to do mostly with external objects like war, peace and foreign commerce. the powers delegated to the individual states, and the other hand, were numerous and indefinite. having to do with all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerned lives, liberties, and properties of the people and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. that is a prescription i think we have forgotten and might do well to try to resuscitate. still, it is worth acknowledging that the founders, the deeply concerned with limiting this year of government power, were also concerned with forging a strong and efficient federal government. the federalist papers took aim at the abundant anti-federalist commentary that opposed the u.s. constitution precisely because, so that the anti-

federalist, that it irrigated too much power to a central authority at the expense of the states. but just this, the founders argue, was the price of creating and maintaining that more perfect union of which the constitution speaks. the vigor of government, alexander hamilton wrote in the first of the federalist papers, is essential to the security of liberty. the goal, he put it later on, is a happy mean which combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. so much for acknowledging the requirements of the vigor of government. i promise not to say another word in its favor. our problem today is not to assure the energy of government, but quite the opposite, to redress the balance and reestablished a happy mean hamilton spoke of by asserting the legitimate jurisdiction of private rights against a rampant and that encroaching

bureaucratically virus -- bureaucratic leviathan. as i thought of this conference, a couple of lines kept recurring to me. one came toward the end of october, 2008, when the then presidential candidate, barack obama, addressed a throng of supporters and told them there are only a few days away from " fundamentally transforming the united states of america. fundamentally transforming the united states of america. what could that mean? at the moment he spoke, the united states was the mightiest, richest, most secure and most freedom-welcoming republican -- a freedom-welcoming republic in the history of the world. if someone were to effect a fundamental transformation of this country, which of those things would he change? people say a lot of things on the campaign trail that they do not mean. so one question would be how

serious was barack obama when he spoke about fundamentally transforming this country? i believe the last two years demonstrate he was utterly in earnest. what indiana governor, mitch daniels, calls barack obama's shock and awe status and, toward transforming the status as a world power, its economic vibrancy, hospitable list toward business and entrepreneurship, and above all, its commitment to limit the government and individual freedom, to let the preamble of the constitution calls the blessings of liberty. how astonishing, for example that the state should proposed to fine you if you not choose to require health insurance policy deemed suitable but state. how amazing that the state should about the head of a private corporation, that it

should tell banks how much they pay their employees, or use taxpayers' money to reward people for buying certain bet -- certain brands of automobiles produced by companies of which the state is part owner. these are extraordinary innovations, dangerous to the ideal of limited government, and dangerous to the life of freedom. just friday, the president told "60 minutes close look at last week's election was not a reflection of the republics dissatisfaction with his policies, but a comment on his administration's failed communication skills. i believe, on the contrary, that the election was a referendum on the administration's policies and its efforts to fundamentally transformed the united states of america. above all, its new assumptions about the proper relationship between the individual and the state should be. whether that referendum will have much effect on what actually happens in washington

in the coming months is another question that we will only know in the fullness of time. last week, calling on republicans to put politics aside, the president said the united states cannot afford to get mired in legislative gridlock for the next two years, we have to move forward. after what has happened these past two years, i would like to put in a good word for gridlock or give it a less opprobrious name -- prudence, due deliberation, for the virtues of what walter bagehot, extolling the value of modern democracy called slow government. the president's former chief of staff made headlines when he declared in the midst of their recent economic meltdown that you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste. what he meant was that a crisis makes people anxious and vulnerable and it is easier in

times of crisis to exploit that vulnerability and pushed through initiatives to enlarge government. which is precisely why in times of crisis, one should, of what is prudent, exercise double diligence about acting hastily. as one british politician observed, most disastrous policies have been introduced at times of emergency. consider the actions of new deal democrats under fdr. many commentators today acknowledge their sudden expansion of the government and a proliferation of burdensome new regulations hamper business, retarded new hiring, and prolonged the depression. fdr and his minions were in the grip of one of the most dangerous of political policies -- the idea that at a time of crisis, the government's response must be proportionate to the degree of public anxiety.

a prudent government, on the contrary, to temper that anxiety with dispassionate judgment. how often have you heard a politician or government aircraft tell you that doing nothing is not an option? -- government bureaucrat tell you doing nothing is an option? in fact doing nothing is an option and in fact the best option. this is something that calvin coolidge, perhaps the most underrated president said it -- don't just do something, stand there. the point is, it is far, far easier to establish them rid oneself of any bureaucracy and if all mankind's bureaucracies, -- of all mankind's bureaucracies, the hardest to kill our government bureaucracies. when the crisis came in 2008, the united states was quick off the mark to spend more, are more common intervene more in business, and impose a raft of paralyzing new regulations.

in the past year-and-a-half, president obama has greatly expanded the size and intrusiveness of the federal government, has spent trillions of dollars, and has come under the rubric of health-care reform, put another 20% of the american economy under the control of washington. i think of thomas jefferson's advice that to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers lotus with perpetual debt, we must make our election between economy and liberty and profusion and servitude. as i speak, the fed is embracing another $600 billion worth of profusion, where will it end?

i think it was something more or other than hypocrisy. i think president obama was sincere. like many friends of humanity, barack obama believes the lot -- politics or with his opponents, those whom he referred to as his enemies, engage in. his occupation is less politics and benevolence. he might indulgently politics to get things done, but he believes his goals transcend politics. they occupy, he thinks, a realm of virtue that may guide politics but is not subject to politics selfish imperatives. when it comes to tax policy, president obama says the chief issue is not raising revenue, but fairness. he just wants, as he famously told joe the plumber, to spread the wealth brown, never mind

wealth is not his to spread. at some point, i think you've made enough money and if you are uncertain about what that meant, just wait. the irs will explain it to you. let's pause of for that word benevolence. it may seem odd in this context, but barack obama is a type of benevolent ruler. not the most thoroughgoing tight but a recognizable specimen nonetheless. benevolence is a curious mental or character attributes. it is less a virtue that an emotion. to be benevolent means what? to be disposed to relieve misery and increase happiness of others. whether you are benevolent -- whether you're benevolent attitude or actions have that that is beside the point. that is why theoretical benevolences compatible of any

amount of practical indifference and even cruelty. you feel kindly toward others. that is what matters. your feelings. the effects of your benevolent feelings in the real world are secondary. russo was a but not -- russo was a philosopher of malevolence, such as karl marx. -- philosopher of malevolence -- benevolence. by abolishing private property and to adopt the president's face, rice spreading the wealth around. every marxes society we know about has brought a wide and spread it thin. hence brigand's observation that the nine most terrifying words in the english language are "i'm from the government and i'm here to help." not that benevolences a bad thing in itself, it is just that like charity, it works best the more local its aims.

and large, it becomes like the telescopic philanthropy charles dickens talks about in "bleak house." her third love -- her philanthropic zeal is -- when it comes to her own family, she is real mess. the welfare state is a model of such abstract benevolence. its chief affects our first to institutionalized dependence on the state while also assuring the steady growth of the bureaucracy charged with managing government largess. these are the things the welfare state does. both show how the welfare state has proved to be difficult to dismantle. doesn't matter that it actually creates more poverty and dependence it was institutions -- was institutionalized to abolish. this is one of the reasons it's so seductive. benevolence is the heroine of the enlightened.

like heroin, it is intoxicating, addictive, expensive, and ultimately ruined us. the intoxicating effects of benevolence help explain the -- the growing appeal of politically correct attitudes from everything from the environment -- you can't go anywhere now out seeing something advertised as being green. i remember when greene named a color and not a religion, to the fate of the third world, the more abstract, the better. one reason is the policies have the sanctions of benevolence. they are against poverty, against war, against oppression, for the environment, and why not? where else are the pleasures of smug self righteousness to be had so cheaply? the intoxicating effects of benevolence help explain why an anchored benevolence is

inherently expansionists. the party of benevolence is always the party of big government. the imperatives of benevolence are intrinsically opposed to the pragmatism that underlies the allegiance to a limited government. the partisans of ltd., want to preserve a space for private initiative. but that is by nature and equitable. some individuals succeed better than others, and that is indeed a point, to encourage innovation and hard work by crowning it with success. writing in 1800, thomas jefferson extoled that wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, but leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labour the breaded has earned, a benevolent government on the contrary would impose some restrictions on the pursuits of industry, sacrificing the rights of

freedom to the demands of equality. the larger the stage upon which the melodrama of benevolence operates, the more dangerous its potential. this is something henry kissinger acknowledge when writing about a new tendency to subject national politics to international tribunals, warned about the risk of substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments. this directly, he noted that dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to a inquisitions sandwich tons. the dictatorship of -- inquisitions and which hunts. setting about to phenomenally transform america's one thing that came to be thinking about this conference. another is the observation from david hume which is used as the epigraph to the road to serfdom.

draft away from the ideal of limited government as envisioned by the founders has been gathering force for decades. the fate of limited government and the fate of liberty are deeply intertwined. as one ferris, so fares the other. that -- as one fares, so fares the other. it's not only something visited upon us from outside, it is something we visit upon ourselves. one of the main points from the road to serfdom concerned the psychological change, the alteration of the character of people extensive government control brought in its wake. the operation involves a process of softening, aggravation, and an exchange of the challenges of freedom and liberty of self- reliance for the cobbling

pleasures of dependence. breaking with the draft becomes more and more difficult the more habituated to depend of the people become. difficult but not impossible. it is too early to say for certain, but i like to think that last tuesday's election was an illustration of james madison's observation in federalist 44 that in a last resort, a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful -- that help harvey mansfield will tell us more about the annulment james madison had in mind. [applause] >> thank you very much. ladies and gentleman, we have

some ground to cover so i'm going to dispense with the opening joke. it would have been about princeton. laughable in itself. i want to discuss four subjects. first, the political science of the founders. second, what is most impressive about the political science of the founders? third, limited government and its connection to the constitution. and fourth, what is limited government? on the first point, someone might think i should speak about the values of the founders. but i am going to speak about the political science of the founders. bally's our personal or groups, part of your identity. they are one the zone. my values against your values. there changeable and have no foundation. they could be otherwise, but

they are just opinions. political science, especially in the federalist, is solid and has a foundation in human nature, which is permanent and fixed. political science of this kind is capable of progress. you can find new discoveries. you can make innovations in how to have a constitution. whereas political science today is based on values. it is therefore changeable. it is historical. it is relative to the times, it is not timeless. it speaks of a living constitution, a phrase in vented some time ago by a progressive. it says that limited government was acceptable in the 18th century but not today because of government and the constitution develops. it grows. accept -- except there is no end

to it. it grows up without ever stopping in growth. what kind of growth is that? it is very much like the science of evolution. the living constitution came from progressives, especially woodrow wilson. the progressives, as you can tell from their interesting name, believe in progress. but there is no way to define it. progress toward what? there must be some fixed and if there is to be progress or growth. or development. if not, the living constitution is a meandering constitution. it does not know where it is going. the founders of political science announces understanding of republics. republic is a popular government based on the consent of the people. it is called a solid basis in

federalist 22. to speak of the founders values is to accept the thinking of today, the thinking of the opponents of the founders. the progressives who believe in the living constitution. my second point, what is most impressive about this political science? the answer is it is introspection. america is a republic. there is a republican genius in the american people. they rejected markey in the american revolution. they expelled the american tories who were partisans of monarchies. therefore, they do not need to establish the republic as opposed to the enemies of a republic. against the policies of aristocracy or marquis', it is not a problem.

the federalist was opposed by the anti-federalist. opponents of the constitution who were also republicans. patrick henry, for example, criticized the constitution because he thought we would become an aristocracy. or a monarchy. there was too much concentrated power. the anti-federalists were not worry about problems within republicanism. to them, the dangers of a republic come from outside. they come from other forms of government. whereas the founders, the federalists, the problems come from within. republics have weaknesses. republics have a disastrous history in the past. there has been no successful republic. the most successful republic was the roman republic which transformed itself into an

empire. they had lived through recent experience and a contemporary scene for them under the articles of confederation was weakness, not strength. so the founders took up the proposal of a modern psychology which tells you you never know what you do. the most important faculty in every human being is your unconscious. you can, with the aid of your unconscious, stumble into and happiness. the founders say be aware of your weakness. you can have much more thought and it is much more dangerous than the weakness of your

enemies. so what are they? what are the weaknesses of republics? republics have had no strong executive. the day distrusted monarchies so much that they refused to put a single or energetic executive in their constitutions. the government must work and have energy. the federalist doesn't say power. power usually means potential. energy means something active. your second weakness was the adequate notion of representation. they used the people to make political decisions directly. if they had representation, a

look for representatives who were like their constituents as opposed to representatives who were more enlightened than their constituents. they have not understood federalism. they thought a federal organization was one that was light a league of independent states like the ignited nations. they never conceived of having to layers of government. both acting on individuals. this was the greatest weakness of the articles of confederation. therefore, they had no true understanding responsibility. they thought of responsibility meaning responsiveness. responsiveness to the people, not taking charge of a situation. they were unable to act decisively in foreign affairs.

they would argue without conclusion, just like the un. above all, there is no solution or recognition of the problem of majority faction. republics have always understood factions as the work of a minority, undermining the majority. but this is not the true danger in republics. because the majority can do wrong and it does so in the republics under the cover, under the guise of the republican form. which is rig -- which is majority rule. the majority should rule. this principle can make a majority faction seemed to be legitimate. a faction is defined in federalist 10 as an action at of interest for passion against the rights of individuals or the interest of the public. today's political science is

unable to recognize faction. the definition of a faction is something disputable. the thing, therefore does not exist. in politics, it seems there is no possibility of certainty in definitions. the founders were aware of this. the federalist solution to majority factions is to have a larger public, to extend the sphere. there needed to be what they called auxiliary precautions with the government. it is not enough to make the government accountable to the people. you must also require it to check itself. therefore, there's a new definition of separation of powers in the federalist. powers must be independent of each other. independence meant able to defend themselves on the run.

-- on their ulna, and to achieve this independence, it is necessary to mix the three differ powers together. there is a mixture of legislative power in the executive and supreme court. this was another weakness of traditional republics. that it did not do this. the anti-federalists were the american version of traditional republicans. they were in favor of small republics or as small as possible. they were against complex government or consolidated government. those are two opposite criticism -- complex and consolidated. the founders wanted complexity for the sake of safety and consolidation in the government for the sake of energy. you need both safety and energy.

you must not go for one at the expense of other. both can be secured in the constitution. then what is a constitution? two meetings -- -- two meetings -- a limited government and the way of life. start with limited government. in this view, the constitution is above ordinary government. in such a way as to limit ordinary government. this is in federalist 53. the constitution is a fundamental law of ordinary law, which is made under the constitution. the constitution is made by the people, ordinary law by the legislature. you can change the constitutional law only by reference to the people whereas ordinary lot is changeable by

the ordinary legislature. so we have a kind of hierarchy in this picture. the people on top make the constitution. we the people without constitution begins. second comes the constitution, constituted by the people. not by a natural law or a higher law, but by constituting. to john locke, to whom our government owes so much, you find a statement that the constitution is a verbal noun. it is a result of constituting, an act of the people. third, after the people, then the constitution, then you have the legislature organized by the constitution, the legislative process. fourth, you have the people who obey and elect the legislature.

so you have the people at the top and also what the bottom. that is the magic of constitutional government. there is sovereignty of the people, but the people do not rule. the consequence is certain governments are constitutional and others are not. some have a pretend constitution like the 1936 soviet constitution. is easy to see through such disguises. on the other hand, you could say in this case, the people are divided because constitutional government is not the whole. it does not represent their choice of how they want to live. yet, isn't a republic a way of life? not just limited government.

the limit of a limited government is part of the republican way of life. the constitution as a means to achieve our end also becomes an end. in federalist 49, madison speaks of the federation that would occur to the constitution if it were held by the people for a time and he thought was a good thing. something that should not be recklessly disturbed. in 19 -- in 1787-1788, the constitution with a choice. but now that we live under it, it is almost inconceivable that americans would abandon their constitution. the constitution as a way of life has a different meaning. the constitution as a structure, something like the biological meaning of constitution, you

could have a strong or weak constitution. every caen -- every country would have a constitution just as every individual has a constitution. the u.s. constitution is a constitution in both senses. it has made certain innovations in political science on how to make popular government safe and energetic. first, a larger public, that a separation of powers which has been perfected, a strong executive, an elected senate as opposed to a set of nobles as in previous republics. at first, the senate was elected indirectly, now it is directly elected but, in either case, it is an aristocratic branch. judicial review and federalism -- the constitution in the wide

cents includes details of our way of life. for example, the fact we have a strong executive lee our constitution has legitimized the abundance of one-man rule in our private lives. ceo's in private life. you see them everywhere. every organization has a single unitary executive. even universities do. this is the main consequence of alexander hamilton's argument in favor of a single, energetic executive. with such an executive, the focus responsibility and it is better to do this than have a committee. this disperses responsibility. the anti-federalists opposes the constitution. they were brought in as part of

the constitution. the bill of rights, james madison brought the anti- federalist in to the constitution -- he was a father of the constitution but he was also the father of the bill of rights and the first congress. he was the one who led their adoption. he brought them in. the anti-federalist or part of the american tradition which we see today in our populism and in the tea party. above all, the phrase "america exceptionally some" what does that mean? it doesn't mean america is unique, but it means america is exceptional. why? this is an old idea to have a republic and republics were

mainly known because they follow the republican idea. but republican government is a government that makes the republican ideal work for the first time. this is an experiment for mankind, an experiment being carried on for the sake of mankind. in which america leads the way. you are welcome to it also, what you have to choose it. we will not force you, we are not imperialists. you can succeed in your own way, like the liberal democracies today of europe. the success of america is the success of republics and liberal democracies. it both protects liberty and shows liberty is something bible. this is the greatness of america.

we are the can-do country. it makes us sometimes impatient, as in the 2006 election. but it is also a feature of our great as. the constitution includes greatness. it appeals to the desire for greatness. it appeals to human ambition. the separation of powers is based on the principle, let ambition counteract ambition. it is not good to have to much harmony. it is better to risk gridlock. gridlock will not occur. some part of the government has the power to act. limitations in the constitution use interests or self interests, for example the larger public is

composed of diverse interests and opinions. each group pursues its interest or opinion, perhaps it does not think of the common good. it does not have to surrender to the community when being itself. but it also has ambition. it is led by people of ambition. ambition is a combination of self-interest and honor. america has ambition as opposed to europe today. especially germany. which seems to think it has nothing to do in the world. france has only the memory of ambition. [laughter] america is acting for the honor of mankind. why honor? why don't i say interests?

because under self-government, is the human being a victim of external forces, a slave of nature? or can he govern himself? interest is not always in favor of self-government or liberty. you may think it is your interest to have eased and security from a benevolent government. you forget your honor in governing yourself. self-government means political liberty. this is the fundamental liberty according to the founders, not cultural liberty, not economic liberty. both of those dependent on self- government, on the hon. determination to royal yourself and do it in such a way that works. what is the sense them of

limited government? federalist says a republic must be able to do is necessary -- fight wars, meet economic crises, but this necessity is open to expansion. necessaryphrase, the and proper clause, it comes at the end of the list of enumerated powers but congress has plus any that are necessary and proper for the execution of the foregoing powers. federalist 33, which is written on the necessary and proper clause, in that wonderful argument, necessity is not contrasted to proper, ordinarily

when something is necessary, it might not be proper and when it is proper, it might not be necessary. but, it is -- it's as necessary and proper in the constitution. each contains the other. you must bring necessities into the constitution's. a typical republican of the old school of the pre-american school, might say this is republican morality and that is what is necessary to do. thereby minimizing or ignoring necessity. it can also lead to hypocrisy to take such an attitude. you pretend to be moral, but you are actually violating morality. you pretend to be moral up front, but behind your back, you are doing something sneaky. federalist says don't be squeamish. if it is necessary, do it constitutionally.

use the power of the executive. if you leave the power outside the constitutional -- of the constitution, your principal becomes wishes or you will become a victim of wishful thinking. necessary means necessary to the republic. not necessary to individual in his own life. that is to say take advantage to murder someone to get ahead, no. also necessity includes the necessity of good government. good government means it is republican and it is successful. good government is not perfect government because the government itself is a reflection on human nature. that is in federalist 51. human nature is the same. we're always going to need governments. there will be no perpetual peace, federalist says, in its

approach to -- in a reproached to kant. there is no spontaneous order that will enable us to take care of ourselves without a government. good government means the rule of law plus the necessary exceptions to the rule of law. the rule of law includes four must be added to with energy and good administration. limited government is not necessarily a small government. small government is not necessarily self government. limited government is self- government. it is not small and it isn't big. big government tries to take away your self government. it knows better than you how to read things. it usurps your liberty for the sake of your benefit. it is a mild despotism because it has benevolence at goodwill.

mild despotism is the phrase -- can steal up on you. it is benevolent and seems beneficent. so self-government as opposed to small and big government. self-government begins from human nature, which is fixed. liberty is a necessity of our human nature, but it can be for good and bad. when it is for good, it is for ambition and honor. when it is for bat, it is called encroachment, one of the favorite words of the federalist. human nature is fixed, but the constitution is not fixed. i hasten to say, interpretation that short of changing the

constitution. the constitution is not to be changed except by the people. republican government is not fixed, it is open to choice by the people. partisan disputes in making this choice is inevitable. it stands for, because partisan dispute is a necessary consequence of choice and liberty. there will always be liberals and conservatives. so the constitution is not a guarantee of good government. it is not a machine that runs of itself. each generation has the responsibility to make our constitution a success. it is free to make mistakes, except for mistakes that put an end to our freedom. thank you. [applause]

>> good morning. roger asked us to speak, to think whether the individual can push back the state. this week, this month, many of us are wondering if it is possible at all. the free market people, some free-market people might have done well in the midterm elections, but instantaneously, when we hear this, we get a second thought and say winning is easy. can these new arrivals stop a progressive tied to be successful by their own terms? new lawmakers, whether they're tea party lawmakers are not have to make law that built a wall

that stops a tide of progressivism to protect the economy and let it grow. here, there is skepticism. the progressive tied is strong. a lot of legislation is necessary. a change in culture is necessary. persistence is necessary. professionalism is necessary. political professionalism is necessary. master politicians are necessary to stop laws as well as change them or write them. a personality with patients is necessary. someone who doesn't give up. i wanted to talk a little bit about a politician who did stop the progress of tide, who did pull it off, what i just described. it was the 30th president, calvin coolidge. roger mentioned him. he is the subject of a new biography i am writing and a

conversation i have on the internet to talk about him because i think he is so important. coolidge achieved what many politicians today long to do. i am grateful to our host, "new criterion" and our c-span audience to talk about coolidge's challenge, his achievement and his method. if coolidge were standing here, he would stop right now and that would be the end of the speech. he may be surprised to hear me mention coolidge. we do rank our presidents in the united states like sports stars and coolidge as a low rank. maybe he is leigh the 20's or 30's. he is not a player who gets to start. he is there with jimmy carter. he is an accidental president. he was elected on the harding /coolidge ticket, vice-president

in 1920 and came into the presidency by accident when harding died in the middle of the teapot dome scandal in the summer of 1923. coolidge did not talk of lot. people mocked his silence. you have probably heard the stories about coolidge. another republican said coolidge looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle. [laughter] the most famous is a lady sat next to him at dinner and said she had made a bet she could get him to say more than two or three words and his response was "you lose." [laughter] he was distained -- he was disdained, even hating. we tell ourselves that that is writing is a new thing, but they

defined the tree all. most new president get a honeymoon nowadays and we are kind of nice about them. not coolidge. here is what the editor of "the nation" magazine wrote about him to welcome coolidge into office that summer of 1923. "and now the presidency since low indeed. we doubt whether it has ever fallen into the hands of someone so cold, reactionary, an enlightened, or one who has done less to deserve it and calvin coolidge. but we wanted to compare the challenge to the challenges of today and that starts with a wave of progressivism. we had eight solemn rainstorm, but they had a tsunami. we had president wilson, the living constitution, we had the

progressive movement, in the teens, when the income tax became law. the first rate was 7% and they had gotten up to this -- the first top rate was seven and got up to 77% in less than a decade. of course, we got the fed in the '20s and a plan to have some form of national health care, to redistribute wealth, fairness was the concept that as well. many americans wondered if their country was going to have a revolution the way of europe because of organized labor. there were demonstrations of angry veterans in the street, there was an inflation, unemployment, we had a recession in the early 20's. if they demonstrated a europe, berlin, why would it not demonstrate in boston, seattle? yet somehow in the 20's, it was stopped when coolidge "-- when

coolidge was president. there is not much progress of law passed in the '20s. basically, the policy put progressivism on hold and beat it back. coolidge put his finger in the dike and the results were fabulous. the economy grew in the bit 3% range and we always do this math when we do the numbers. you look at a nominal number and say it's good, but it was really better because they often had . flationar unemployment was high for sure in that recession in the beginning. but it dropped real fast, below five within several years of the recession. you go from 19% in the cities to

below 5% pretty fast. real wages grew. people got a ford. the rich got richer, but the rich also, by the end of the 1920's, paid a greater share of the tax than the poor. they got the fairness president obama described by cutting the tax rates. in our modern view, this is confusing. these things don't go together. economists say you have to pick your poison -- joblessness or inflation. there were not just good, they were really good. we can give some credit to warren harding, for sure, hoover, woodrow wilson, even, at the end contacts, but what measures did coolidge take?

first of all, he understood something that modern politicians don't, whatever their party, that change per se is not always good. uncertainty from too much change is bad. sometimes, as he said, sitting still is the best answer. sometimes deceleration is a virtue. it is better to stop a bad law than to sign a good one, he wrote to his father, as early as 1910. i call him the great refrainer, because his great not just for what he did but for what he chose not to do. he was not alone in trying to limit uncertainty. harding, the scandal man, it deserves credit here, the man with a lower rank and coolidge. if you go to his 1921 inaugural address, he focuses specifically on what government should do during a recession.

it sounds so different than anything we might do today. "perhaps we never shall know the old levels of wages again, because war inevitably read just compensation and the necessities of life show they're inseparable relationship." "but we must strive for normalcy and start afresh. no altered system will work a miracle. any wild experiment will only add to confusion. our best insurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system." hard to imagine a politician saying that today. coolidge was part of the team, a leader in the team, that fought for and won a lower taxes. here you have to include wilson goode this started at the 77% rate, will the war -- here you have to include wilson. they started at the 77% rate,

and then went to 25%. that is better than ronald reagan. coolidge was the president who hit the home run. how did he do it? why did he do it? i was in plymouth notch reading his father's papers, looking at where he broke out how much he collected in this little town each farmer could -- in this little town for each farmer. his father was a tax collector for decades, 18 80's, 1890's. i think kulich at good understanding of what taxation -- meant taxation i think often coolidge had a good understanding of what taxation and trade at one point he called the "legalized larceny." he pushed the tax cut through with andrew mellon, the treasury secretary. it was said that the two gentlemen, the treasury secretary and president,

"conversed in pauses." [laughter] they conversed in pauses. coolidge hall to do what advanced of organized labor. this is why he got beyond the -- coolidge halted the wild advance of organized labor. the police had a good case. they were underpaid. their report. they had to share their bunks and the station house. the station house had bedbugs, rats, so much averment that the vermont chewed on the leather of the elements -- so much vermin that the vermin chute on the leather of the helmets. when they went on strike, there was rioting in boston. people expected the governor, calvin coolidge, and the mayor and the police did michener --

the police commissioner to negotiate. they did not. the fired at the policemen. why? because they were -- coolidge, was all that was done -- coolidge did it, or saw that was done, because you wanted to draw a line in the sand about organized labor and how far progressives ago, and he said that there is no right to strike against public safety by anyone, anywhere, anytime. that resonated. the progress of tide is not going to get any farther. that helped him get elected a vice president in 1920 and president in 1924 in his own right. coolidge and harding -- the federal budget was in the 6's, a

different illions but the same concept could the brought it to $5.1 billion, up $3.3 billion, $3.1 billion, to about one. in the 1920's, at $2.9 billion. -- two at one time in the 1920's, at $2.9 billion. coolidge's spoke about the economy a lot, but he did not mean measuring aggregates but he meant savings by government. he said that we need the economy. he came into office in 1923 and left in 1929, and when he left, calvin coolidge's budget was lower than when he came in. this alone, i think, rehabs him. coolidge kept government out of the best of the economy. the chief business of america is business. the utilities industry, the kind

of internet of the day, the most promising industries. naturally, that industry was coveted by government. a large effort to capture utilities and to involve government involvement in production of electricity through the expansion of the government dam into a hydropower system, the wilson dam at muscle shoals. coolidge vetoed it and post audits socialization. there were other useful be those -- and postponed its socialization. there were other useful the toes. he was from vermont and he understood farmers. how did he do it? the unexpected ways. one is by not being grandiose, by not minding being called republicans -- demonstrators today -- democrats -- nobody today wants to be called dull.

his strike was to embrace d -- his strength was to embrace dull. here is what will to live in said about calvin coolidge, at -- what walter lippmann said about, and coolidge, "the skill with which mr. coolidge applies it wet blanket is technically a marvelous. there has never been mr. coolidge's equal in the art of deflating interest. he imagines it is desirable to excite interest in government. the indignation is useful. mr. coolidge is more sophisticated. he has discovered the value of diverting attention from government, and with exquisite subtleties that amounts to genius, he uses dulles and boredom as political devices."

he is the anti-rahm emanuel. the pop quiz of coolidge's convictions and integrity in this regard came with the katrina of that era, the 1927 flood of the mississippi. a dramatic flood come out more than 20 feet high, thousands of people displaced. he had the same question that president bush would confront, the tour is to react as a military leader would -- the choice to react as a military leader would come or to pause and respect federalism. coolidge did the latter. he did not see it as the role of washington to run it all, and specifically not to fund it. private philanthropy should take the lead.

the government's job was secondary, to help the red cross organize its work. a third feature of coolidge that enabled him to achieve what he did was that he practiced politics well. he was a career politician, the kind we are trying to go out these days -- vote out these days bridget. massachusetts state legislature, the tenant governor, governor, a vice-president, president he knew that to get your goal, it took skill, whether it was a pocket veto or behind-the-scenes work, he did work carefully. he picked his battles, he did not have a steep learning curve, because he took the years before he got the presidency to learn

his craft. he is that rare animal, a politician who is a master and uses his mastery to make government smaller. the final feature of the coolidge method that must be mentioned, and it goes with dr. is hisld's remarks, humility, first with his office. he not only had the ability to delegate, but felt he ought to to respect the structure of the executive branch. when the time came to run for a second elected term, an entitlement in modern politics of a successful president, he declined with an admonition that could have been written by lord acton. "it is difficult for men in high office to avoid the melody of self delusion -- malady of self delusion. they are surrounded by worshipers and are assured of their own greatness." "the chance of having twice

unfaithful public servants are increased by a change in the president of -- wise and faithful public servants are increased by a change in the presidential office." he respected property and contracts, he knew and economy was not aggregate's but about deals with man and man or men and women. he cared about the bilateral, two-on-two part about mutual respect, which is why civility is a big topic for us. "the nation" magazine might attack him, but it is hard to find in his work in an hominem attack on anyone. this made him popular. he believed that there were some areas where the spiritual or god had authority that ought not be a sale. "the chief business of america is business," but they are giving the incomplete report, because he did not just say

that, he said that "the ideal of america is idealism," 2. he made clear repeatedly that there were rolled or government could not go -- realms where government could not go. in the naming of a statute in 1924, he said, "the government of the country never gets ahead of a religion of the country. there is no way by which we can substitute the authority of law by the virtue of man. you have to have both." you go straight back to the founders who are our subjects that takes us to the final question. if college and the 1920's were a success and they roared like a relial lion, how did history coudrown it out? one is the great depression that followed, and here is the school book logic.

if it lasted a decade, then the error that caused the great depression had to be commensurately great and cover a commensurate amount of time. the powerball, by now rethinking , binary thinking. so the 1920's are condemned as gatsbyish, trivialized as a footnote in history, and so the president a speech realized as well. roosevelt good means coolidge's bad. presidents were more subtle than that. also, and i think jim is going to talk about this today -- we cannot talk about what he achieved because we speak a different economic language. , and thatynesian as soism

especially likes the vocabulary to describe what happens in the 1920's -- lacks the vocabulary to describe what happens in the 1920's. a recession with a cut the budget and increased the discount rate and it did not halt the recovery? impossible. a debate that this proves the phillips curve? well, let's not talk about th at. unions got smaller, and yet real wages rose and strongly? may be safer not to discuss. so much emphasis on supply and so little on demand, must've been fake. but because it is inconvenient troops, our social science overlooks the -- because of these inconvenient truths, our social science overlooks the 1920's, but that does not mean it did not happen.

the way our politicians as sports stars, and coolidge did have many faults. he said a nasty immigration law, imposed tariffs come within the platform of his party. tariffs hurt economies. still, i hope you agree that the fact supplies suggest that coolidge warrants an upgrade, that he belongs on the all-star team. thank you. [applause] >> my task is to comment on these two papers, and i have not thought as the about "the federalist," i don't know as much about to conclude as amity shlaes 3 i am in -- i don't know as much about calvin coolidge as amity shlaes.

i am all that stands between you and the break. i will be brief. i will build on those talks to been against a little bit -- i agree with the sentiment, and roger's talk as well, that animates this meeting, but the best i could do is lean against it a bit, to reinforce what most of us are inclined to believe. the first point that follows a harvey mansfield's talk -- be put it in a more support way -- the wisdom of the founders cannot be reduced to limited government did it is a mistake to reduce it that way, and it is a mistake to simply read the founders -- to simply take the quotations that are most important to take -- i don't quarrel in any weight on the campuses of limited government in an error or the government is planning an expanding at the

most worrisome things about it is the sense of illimitability, never enough in terms of the welfare state. i'm a very much on board with the limited government agenda and the tea party agenda as part of it. on the other hand, people should read "the federalist papers," and they are obligated, a defense of limited government, a strong defense of self- government, a popular government, which sometimes cuts against limited government, as some of our libertarian constitutional experts have argued. there is a tension between the court's upholding limited government sometimes and a strong populist impulse that rises up to legislate in the right way. it is a healthy tension.

but it is a tension that "the federalist" discusses and recognizes and claims that the constitution results as much as it can be resolved. one of the striking things a hearing what are the men still thinks about "the federalist -- what harvey mansfield things about "the federalist," and obviously, i have read a few times, but one of the striking things this how are heade -- how hard headed the authors are about good republican government, balancing not reconcilable tendencies -- irreconcilable tendencies, but was the cut in different directions. but " the federalist" is not shy about this. the need for stability and for security, especially this abilit -- the stability, and

cut against other aspects of the government. we had a complicated system of government. a republican system that is not simply democratic. little d. that tries to take account of these acts? -- of these aspects. there is no perfect way to do this. the constitution and the founders had all kinds of problems and considerations. there were not beginning with a blank slate, for one thing. they tried to work these things out as well as they can. "federalist 51," for example, might point out some direction, but some deviation might be required, because of the peculiarity of the government, the character of the united states and a large republic the complexity of the founders, the wisdom of the founders, is worth stressing. no mean by any means -- i do not

mean by any means to say that is so complex that we cannot deal with it, and these op-eds in "the new york times" by pseudointellectual historians chastising the tea party -- there is a certain amount of that even among conservatives, elitist looking and showing off at the expense of the most simple-minded tea party activist statement you confined and taking it out of context. i do not want to associate myself with that. having said that, but the truth is, and tea party activists must understand that the wisdom of the founders is complicated. founders wanted energetic government. the one it energetic and limited government. -- what it energetic and limited government. -- they wanted energetic and

limited government. some academics were able to do what at the time it seemed like a hopeless effort, that maybe the founders' view more than which will send -- at the woodrow wilson or others. -- than woodrow wilson or others. martin diamond road an essay called "ltd. and energetic government." you need to be energetic on the things that government has to do with the problems of limited government -- one of the problems of limited government is that it is not energetic. to some degree, a sprawling, enervating welfare state that cannot to effectively what government should do it effectively, and tries to do a good thing in a sort of incompetent and meddling but not

decisive way, about those things for which government should be decisive. this is not a particularly big correction, but i would say that there is a little bit too much, sometimes, i sensed that -- but i sense that -- what has to be careful to preserve the wisdom of the founders. they say this again in the " federalist papers," that they are dealing with the world as it is and would have a slightly different recommendations about 1789,in things in 1787 or 7 but not on the fundamentals, but application of them. as a matter of legislative policy, we live in a different world and nation and there is no mechanical solution from the founders. that is what point did my second and other point -- that is one

point it might second and other point, really prompted more by amity's talk, if a war against her -- a little more against her talk than harvey's -- one temptation we must resist is a certain amount of the stall judge for the past. -- of nostalgic for the past. that everything was great until it went off their wills and a certain year -- a great until it went off the rails and a certain years. one has to be hard-headed about what the alternatives were at the time and what the alternatives in some respect always are to be. it is not as someone has protection and then progressivism is the alternative could -- one has perfection and then progressivism is the

alternative. i am no expert on this, but the abandonment of blacks in the south was not a high water mark in american history, and that was one of the key decisions made and this year's -- made in those years. blacks in the south regressed in those years, and it was due to that simple conservatism was not a solution to the politics of the day. the 18 eighties and 1890's were roiled by divisive debates on monday, gold and silver, the labor uprising. it is not as if it was a wonderfully stable free-market nirvana where everybody was on board with the hayekian vision progressives understood that this was unsustainable and it could go worse in a crazy

direction. william jennings bryan got 40% of the vote for president. progressives were in an attempt to take all of these courses and problems and try to reshape them. there's a lot of theory behind progressivism, up from germany and elsewhere, a lot of practice involved, a lot of this case will ac -- a lot of distasteful aspects to it, particularly under wilson, but much about overdue how wonderful things were -- one should not over to how wonderful this work. it was a particularly bad recession that was put to him -- that was threatening to the u.s. i utterly defer to amity on coolidge, and the rediscovery of coolidge is something that isn't

political scientists did a few years ago, -- that dissident political scientists did a few years ago, and i look forward to amity building on at work, to radically challenge the kind of deep reform of political correctness that it's got to do something like the judgment of coolidge, where everybody assumes that he was second rate and not very thoughtful. it is amazing to go back and read his speeches and some of the justifications of policies, what andrew mellon did as treasury secretary. in that respect, i am a very much a supporter of the rethinking of american history that is pretty well under way, due to a lot of the press of dissidents, coming out to different schools, i would say, of political philosophy and history, who were willing to challenge the orthodox consensus of the last 20, 30, 40 years.

on the other hand, just be a bit of a skunk at the calvin coolidge started, he was wrong not to run for reelection. he keeps the presidency over to a man who was a disastrous -- he gave at the presidency over to a man who was a disastrous president, herbert hoover. he made possible and i would say inevitable that results would get in -- that franklin roosevelt would get in and do some of the things he did. we had smoot-hawley in 1930, disastrous policies under robert hoover. i take it that some of the fed governors were appointed under herbert hoover. endorsed high tariffs. i believe it was under coolidge that the secretary of state, frank kellogg, found a tree that permanently allied war --

founded a tree that permanently outlawed war. played some part, am i right, in the kind of unhealthy sense that govern america in the first part of the 1930's that made it more likely that we would not intervene or encourage others to intervene in a way that might have made a difference in europe. it is a silly argument to blame everything on the 1930's and taught in college, but if everything was so great, -- and calvin coolidge, but if everything was so great, you would think that there would be a bit more of a barrier to the great depression and everything that happened in the 1930's. i would want a little bit about excessiveness of for a particular -- warn a little bit about excessive and stock offer for a particular moment -- nostalgia for a particular moment. william howard taft, we really

convinced that he was the perfect choice for the election? i don't know, i have not looked closely at it, or coolidge or hoover or even into more modern times, the 1932 to 1952 -- not terrible years, really, for the united states of america. roosevelt and the new deal, we came out of that could go somewhat better off than we went into it -- out of that, though somewhat better off than we went into it. i am for the critique of progressivism, as an intellectual and historical matter. attitude, progressivism needs to be fought, -- in truth, progressivism needs to be fought, but one has to be discriminating in what one endorses against it.

somehow, the idea of progress is not a ridiculous idea. the idea of progressivism, maybe. the good news, having been a little bit against the veneration for the wisdom of the founders, the excess of this auto for particularly -- excessive nostalgia for un progress of characters in history, i am more optimistic than my friends about this. the election that happened on tuesday, a week ago, was a very big deal. the biggest switch of house seats since 1938, the biggest switch of house seats in midterm election of a first term of a president ever in american history. no president, no first term elected president, has ever had

the repudiation of president obama and the democratic party last tuesday. there was issues-based, policy- based repudiation. it was a parliamentary-style election, and that president obama -- it was about him and the national agenda. it was not much about local issues. obviously, a good candidate could save himself and that republican candidate could doom him or herself -- and a bad republican candidate could doom him or herself. but those close to obama -- the states held on were once were obama has decent approval ratings. the state of washington, decent numbers, and the state where they plummeted, midwest,

disasters for the democratic party. it was a very big verdict and a big opportunity. those sitting around a bit -- to go from a reversal in 2008, 2010, the depth of the verdict at the state legislative level, the opportunity, the fact that it was issue and policy-based, not state based -- no katrina or war in iraq being boggled, which led to 2006, perhaps a legitimate verdict on the bush administration -- this was of every issue-based repudiation. and the character of the opposition was ideas-based. the tea party movement is an amazing thing. there is nothing like it anywhere else in the world trade genuinely grass-roots movement, bottom-up, -- there is nothing

like it anywhere else in the world. a genuinely grass-roots movement, bottom-up, genuinely interested in ideas. policy is more conducive to the petite and self-government and effective -- conducive to liberty and self-government and effective government. no one told them to have these ideas. of course, to confine things that one disagrees with, a little -- you can find things that one disagrees with, a little wacky at times, but overall very healthy thing. this is something that should reassure one about the state of politics. having said that, the task is for these ideas to be translated into a reasonably successful and compelling policies. this one election will have to be built on. that is a huge task of its own challenges. i would just end by saying that

it is pretty impressive what has happened over the last two years, and it's a guess mean that the lessons of the founders and later successful -- it suggests to me that the lessons of the founders and later successful presidents are deeper in the american psyche than one might have expected. all the efforts to extirpate the memory of the founding fathers and the principles of the declaration or limited government or the fears of in any state with apologies of the welfare state -- americans were more attentive to that better than the academy and elsewhere and various precincts of new york and cambridge and the like. it turns out that there was a kind of not just help the resistance, but a healthy willingness to look for alternatives and look for them seriously. it is all the more important to go back and include the wisdom of the fathers and someone like

coolidge, but do it in clear eyed way without too much gauzy view of history are too much nostalgia or wishful thinking. [applause] >> we are running a little behind, but i figured we probably would. we have a little extra time into the program. first, i would like to see whether professor mansfield or amity shlaes would like to respond to -- perhaps you would like to say something for non- excessive nostalgia. speak up for that. and please speak to the microphone. >> can you hear me? well, i did not say anything, as i recall, about the 19th century. i guess bill thinks implicit in what i said is installed to four -- is nostalgia for the 19th

century pre-progressive, but would contest -- i would contest that. the second thing to say is that i think the maybe the hardest question about coolidge is the departure in 1928. we have to decide -- i have to decide as a biographer and we all have to decide whether it was good or bad, whether a president choosing to depart -- do we care more about having good people that we care about stopping political and kreisman and people staying too long -- political encrustment and people staying too long? this will be a subject of the biography. on balance, i think he was white. -- he was right. because of his religious

adherence to delegation, he felt the treasury fshould run things or the fed to it because of what the boss said, he did not intervene to much. -- because of what the laws said, he did not intervene to much. nonetheless, had they followed coolidge-like policies, had they followed the policies of the early 1920's or the early 1930's, i would argue we would not have had a 10-year depression afterwards. we would have had a terrible, shot depression i created -- sharp depression activated by , but what happened b -- it would have been briefer, not ironed into our memory as the great depression is. oni don't want to gang up

dear amity over here, but just to reiterate my point about ambition, one of the good things about the tea party is that it connect to the republican party and did run candidates within the republican party. one of the problems of refraining or being modest or being prudent, it does not inspire people. maybe in coolidge, in his own case, he was not inspired by is self -- by himself enough to run for another term. [laughter] and it does not seem to produce itself either. -- does not seem to reproduce itself either. you do not have a child who says, "i have the ambition to

be aup and be a blanke -- wet blanket." [laughter] this is a problem for conservatives generally, that they have an addition, but the use it for business and culture and other things and not so much for politics. there was a book called "the united states of ambition," pointed out the discrepancy between the two parties, liberals and their ambition going to government and conservatives with their admission against government, so they don't go into it. -- their ambition against government, so they don't go into it. >> before we take questions from the audience, i want to see if anyone on the panel wants to intervene. is there any question -- please go to the microphone and say who

you are. the morning's discussion has been so of the convincing that -- so utterly convincing that no one has any questions. all right, why don't we have a short break and reassemble in seven and a half minutes? >> the 111th congress ended earlier this month. all week on c-span, we're looking at departing speech es and the new members about to replace them. representative pete hoekstra, and the man elected to take his to takebill huizenga -- take his seat, bill huizenga.

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we will look executive power with former independent counsel ken starr and attorney john yoo, who wrote the memos on torture in the department of justice in the george w. bush administration . later, "2 in" with john burns -- "q & a" with john burns, and later, garrison keillor on humor in public life. later, redistricting and class and race.

>> good morning. i am calvin smyre, and we will commute 2 hour session. we watched c-span -- the welcome you to our session. we welcome c-span and all of you. redistricting is on the horizon, we have a state legislators here to hear from a panel of experts. we are delighted that roland martin is here to moderate this redistricting session. we are delighted that all of you all are here from across america. our organization is made up 600- plus legislators in 42 states, including the district of columbia and the virgin islands. we're learning more about this issue called reapportionment and redistricting.

we would like to invite to the mike mr. fraser mississippi. >> our father in heaven, that to -- can you for the blessings of bestowed on us this week. -- thank you for the blessings you have bestowed on us this week. we thank you for all the blessings we have seen. we thank you put the good things that happened this week. we thank you for the camaraderie and leadership you have given us. we thank you for the opportunity to sit down and discuss an important issue today. this we ask in jesus' name, amen. >> again, we want to welcome c-

span2 this is the second time in the last four years they have been -- we want to welcome c- span to this the second time in the last four years they have been with us. there were with us on the digital divide we want to thank all of the panelists. we welcome our longtime friend and supporter, mr. roland martin. would you give him a round of applause? he has been with us before as well. [applause] i want to watch him our president for the year 2011 and 2012, barbara ballard of kansas. [applause] >> it is an honor for me to be here for the closing ceremony. we had an unbelievable breakfast, and we all feel rejuvenated and dedicated and ready to work. again, we will just say what jump to the national black caucus of state legislators --

welcome you to the national black caucus of state legislators. it is an honor to recognize and introduce to you our moderator for this morning, mr. roland martin, or winning journalist and political analyst. -- award winning journalist and political analyst. i just found out we have one thing in common, we share the same birthday, november 14. whenever i am looking at cnn and whenever and we have the pundits on and i see him come on, i always smile, because i know there is going to be action, and i know there is going to be disagreement and someone will say something and he will do one of these numbers, and you know it is going to happen. maybe some furniture moving. well, i was trying to be nice. i will simply say some things you may know. he was named "ebony" magazine's

most influential african- american, 2008, 2009, 2010. he is a former executive editor of "chicago defender," the nation's most historic black newspaper. he also has a new book out. "the first -- barack obama's wrote to the white house stock was one of the things i hear people say often about mr. -- barack obama's road to the white house." one of the things i hear people say about him is that if you want to hear it, he will present it to you. i present to you, mr. roland martin. [applause] >> november 14 is a good day. your birthday, too?

all right then, certainly grad -- glad to be with you for this important conversation. before we get started, and today is an important date just beyond this conference. all my non-alpha fencer, today is the founder's day of the fraternity -- non-alpha friends here, today is the founder's day of the fraternity. that is why you see me in black and gold. for those of you who were not members, everybody could not get in. i understand. as i tell them all the time, when folks talk about alpha and omega and sigma, the difference between first-class and coach. i don't mind coach but it is not first class.

one of my good friends over there -- "what's to date?" "it is your daddy's birthday." when you go home, i wanted ringing in your ear, "who's your daddy? alpha is your daddy." and one thing you for that in your introduction, i am a native texan, born and raised in houston could that is why i have the bird today as well. -- born and raised in houston. that is why i have boot today as well. i live in chicago, but born in houston.

anita earls, executive director of the southern coalition for social justice. [applause] john tanner, a former chief of the voting section of the justice department civil-rights division. [applause] next to him, the hon. gilda cobb-hunter, state representative from south carolina. [applause] you just want to embarrass the rest of the panelists. [laughter] last but certainly not least, from my native houston, state senator rodney ellis. [applause] he is a little pain these days, because he also graduated and finished the university of texas law school.

you followed me on twitter. the whole notion of apportionment in terms of how we are going to be operating in the next 10 years is so vital. i will ask a political question. it amazes me how this issue was rendered totally irrelevant during the midterm elections. it was as if four democrats and republicans, it really came up, the actual stakes that are at play. from a political standpoint, even if you do not been involved in pitics, why is it that this is such an important issue? it's no attention every two years. -- it gets no attention every

two years, until after the fact. >> one reason we tend not to raise it is it gives the appearance of being self- serving. we know that it matters. not just for members of congress and county commissioners. everybody will have to redraw the lines. usually, it appears to be so self serving. it is hard to get the public to understand it until something dramatic happens. >> it is very selfserving to talk about it after the election. it amazes me how it is not a significant issue prior to the election, but afterwards, people said that it is so important. >> but we have a different response. i would suggest to you that it did not give raised with policy makers and people who are in a decision making position. from my perspective, the issue

was raised. it just fell on deaf ears. the folklore in a position to make the decion about redistricting and understanding it and the fact that state legislors draw lines. we recognize that and thosof us sadr on the bottom tried to get those on the top to recognize that. -- those of ushat are on the bottom. it is as democrats. we are always a day late and a dollar short. because it did not address the upfront, we now have a different frame of mind. what happened on november 2 means to me that the way we were

thinking of redistricting, we will not be able to do this anymore. there are different decision makers in place. >> the players got it. when you are trying to raise money, it is because you let them know that the lines will be drawn. we do have a justice department hofully that will not be as political as it has been the past. and these that will help us have some semblance. >> if you are and a small state like south carolina and west

virginia and all of those, the level of funding will be different. >> how many black state senators in south carolina? >> none. >> we might be big, but it's still too. one in dallas and one in houston. >> it is very important that the broader community is going to -- is aware of these issues and the ramifications of redistricting. we had an opportunity when doing this since this process to point out that that account was going determine our political representation in the future. we did not do enough collectively in terms of our outreach and our elected officials and government to tide that issue to our represtation.

>> you are certainly right that it did not get the attention that it deserved. it got more attention this time than previous decades. from the perspective of voters on the ground, up redistricting has traditionally been done in back rooms. not something that they understand or had an opportunity to b involved in. as the technology has made it easier for individuals to draw maps, over the last three cycles of redistricting, we have seen more community involvement. so north carolina, there was some talk about the impact of our state legislative and redistricting. there was more awareness from before, but not as much as there should be. >> can you leave all the microphones on?

>> the one time i think redistcting in my state got more attention than it has gone a long time was in 2003. remember, we had the recounting stuff going on in florida. you have the recall stuff going on in california. then you have to read- redistricting in texas. into a dozen free, -- they decided mid decade, and they would just do it again. the house members broke the four men went to oklahoma. on the senate side, they were gone about three days. we tried that and we thought we'd be gone three days. it put it on the front burner and the average person should -- could see how it mattered.

my republican colleagues picked up five seats in the united states congress by redistricting. people understood that it mattered. >> i want to come back to that point. we're going to break down some of the things that happens. how race was used in the region by the republicans. >> there was more attention, but there never really caught on because it was an over the horin issue. it was a long-term issue. this election was about getting a paycheck next week. >> talking to -- tying redistricting to issues is one way to broaden the consciousness. the average american understands that in communities of color,

word to many of our relatives are incarcerated and have their right to vote taken away, when people begin to make that connection, i think you could see them understand much more powerfully that that count and where we are counting will affect our representation. >> do you believe that when it comes to this issue that nationally, the democrats' approach it as doing the right thing? republicans approached it as doing -- i do not mean that in a negative way. they see it as a takeover. democrats say, it is all about fairness and doing t right thing. it is amazing when you look at

how different people view this very issue. speak to that in terms of how both parties, in your estimation, of this issue. >> -- a view this issue. >> i will say that i believe that all parties areperating in their own self-interest. none of them are magnanimous. there is a political calculation going on with republicans, democrats, and that is why it is important that another perspective needs to hit the table. communities of color need to think of up protecting and preserving the representation that they have had increasing the rresentation going forward. there was a political sea change that just took place. american diversity is at an all- time high right now. there are over 100 million people who are not quite in this country.

-- white in this country. we need to focus on the more positive side of the equation. those sobor protecting black representation and speaking about increasing its -- those who are protecting black representation in need to work together to make that dream a reality. >> i agree that this is an issue for the democrats are interested in justice and the republicans are interested in selfishness. but i'm a democrat. >> did as many as possible, even if we change it midstream. >> during redistricting, everyone, keep your back to the wall. it is not just the other party. it is not just people who are white. it is every person for themselves.

your best friend, when it comes down to it, might not be ur best friend. >> progressives have to be constrained by this notion of fairness. when barbara jordan when and, they had that scheme of electing ople. democrats controlled the texas legislature. she had to fight with conservative whi democrats to make room for hers. my first experience with redistricting is back -- i was on the city council. they said, your district is the right size, but your next one is too big, and the next one is too little. you have to take some people

from a smaller district -- which precincts to do you want to take out? >> i am young, 29 years old, that is simple. the ones i lost. >> i can do math. >> take out the ones i lost. >> they said, they are the ones in the middle of your district. you should take out to a better hire and come, and do that are lowein calm. -- to add that are higher in combat and to that are lower income. >> we need to be concerned about this issue. we need to be concerned about not fighting with hispanic legislators. we have to be concerned with our republican colleagues who want to help us.

they would like to pass come -- 'em.'em and crack they want to get rid of people but i might influence. >> that is why i raise that issue. when you talk about the diversity of the country, we will be by 2042 a majority /minity country. in 7 states, -- when you look at political districts, they are blacker and blacker, browner and browner, wider and wider. by design, it that is being

done. over the next 10 years, how you fight that when you saw such a see change on november 2, use of state legislatures flipping. how do you fight that? the efforts to make these districts based upon it racial lines. >> the supreme court has made it harder free to fight that. in the board decision recently, the court said in order to protect a district, you have to draw a district that is 50% or more african-american. the naacp was on the side arguing that if you could elect someone in the district of someone less than 50%, that

should secede protection under the voting rights act. it will be harder. i am talking about the part of the voting rights act that covers the entire country, section two. you will have to show that it is possible to draw 50% or more. previously,any of our state legislators, many of local elected officials, are elected in districts that are 40 -- 42%, 46%. we have seen increasing white crossover vote. >> i agree with that. section 5 of the act, a pretax gains that have been won it -- in gains that have been won. it protects the districts that have been elected minority

candidates who are elected fm districts that are under 50%. it protects against packing. if you take minorities out of current districts and put them district,tor ellis' you are reducing their power in the regional district. there are protections that are not present in parts of the country. the wa you have to go in the rest of the country is show that this change is motivated by racial discriminatory purpose. that is a complicated task. >> getting on top of the process right now -- some states have to take care of their redistricting

in the next six months. states like new jersey. coalitions, and political coalitions, so that finding common ground rather than going at it in a death grip struggle over this line or a bad piece of territory. we did that piece of territory. if you can come up with coalition plans, and they could put pressure on the process up front. there are caucuses in this room that historically have met that challenge. >> give us an example. the kind of coalition building that you were talking about that has been effective that could serve as a model for other folks to follow. >> i can give you a new york example. there is a caucus and new york

-- in ne york state black- hispanic-asian legislative caucus. back in the 1980's, that group first challenge be reduced in plan for new york city -- redistricting plan for new york city. they shot down -- they shut down the ridge assisting -- the redistricting process. they challenged the commission that i have now been appointed to, but then they challenge the commission, the leadership of the state legislature, and they forced the redrawing of additional congressional districts.

had those groups not work together, we might have had black legislators fighting hispanic legislators over this piece of territory or that. they would not have achieved a positive result. >> it is important to remember that there is no cookie cutter approach to the redistricting. each state does it differently. in some states, the general assembly does it. in some states, there are commission cetera appointed to coalition building has to be external and internal. he has talked about the external piece. let me talk about the internal peace and break it down regionally. with all due respect to new york, is a little bit different down south. most southern legislators for the process is done internally,

is what is left of white democrats, black and brown caucus members, i do not get together and agree up front that it is totally a ridulous for all of us to pack in as much as possible into these districts, i think we are all missing the point. here is what i would like to leave with you. as legislators, the challenge is on august 2 first and foremost stop being selfish. -- the challenge is on us to stop being selfish. we do not need these super majority black populations. i am oy expressing my opinion, not the organization's opinion. i believe very strongly that the political climate we are in right now, with the polarization and all of that ball of wax about how we have gridlock, we

have the same problems in state houses. did we have become much too partisan. for those of us who re about public policy, do care about people, and processed, it behooves us to talk about what is in the best interest of democracy and the people we serve and it makes us better legislators when we have to go out and work for the votes. if you have to go and work for the votes and appeal to people who are different from you, that makes you a better legislator and makes the process better. [applause] >> a lot folks do not want to have toork that hard for the vote. let's just be honest. . .

you had african americans that said, if we can get this one seat, that was viewed as a victory, picking up one seat, but politically, you lost five seats, so you have lost 1/4. that is what broke the whole deal when he ran for that seat and lost. he lost his seat as well.

>> that particular person one of the senate seat, and he's a fine person but he is out of politics and i hope retired. >> let me go to the broader issue first and foremost. for younger legislators in this room, you need to know the process. if you are in a big state like new york, california or texas, the resources are there for you. if you are in a state that does not do that, the resources are not there and you have to get on the computer and figure out how to draw a district. it is rather self-serving. the most important issue for every legislator in the room right now is your state budget. who gets cut and who does not get cut? if you are spending all your time figuring out how to draw your district, you may try wonderful district, but you'll probably get retired if they know you done.

we pick up three new seats in congressional districts, we have picked up one of your seats out of new york. we will probably have 35 members of congress but we will still have 35 members of the state senate. -- and want some people who will agree with me. you have to take the element of self out. i have been here 20 years and i've served longer than i am going to surf. i do not plan for them to world the out of their straight and to the convalescent home. i want to make sure i can impact drawing a district that some person with my values could win. they may not necessarily be

african-american. most of the growth in texas has been hispanic. at some point, a young intern used to work for me and i said one of these days there will be one african-american in the state senate and another person in there that probably looks like me but maybe from the dominican republic. and that's ok. but i want them to have a district where they can fight for is used for people i think i have fought for. these are not our seats. this notion of racial gerrymandering was to create opportunities for people who think like we think. they don't all have to look like us. some people look like me but don't think like me. [applause] >> americans demographics is moving in favor of communities of col community of color's bac

shouldn't be against the wall, in terms of scrambling for representation. in 2000, there were 35 million african-americans. in 2010, there were 42 million african-americans. there are seven million mare people of african descent than 10 years ago. that's an opportunity for thking representation, not decreasing. not retro aggression. so, as senat ellis mentioned, we just need to find where this new seven million is and reap the harvest. it also work with othergroups in multi-racial and multi-political coalition so that everybody gets a share. >> clearly we are talking a black state legislators but we do have to confront the issue of the competition that is out

this, that is prevalent, that is real when it comes to african-americans and his pangs. so for each over you, give me an example, of not what is worked t a horrible xm pell that you had that you witnessed, that you think hurt both communities by that lev of in-fighting an why that can't be the road to progress over the next two years. >> i can't think of that -- that many issues in terms of redistrict but o political issues, i can. generally black and hispanic legislators are going to agree on affirmative action programs for business. we come toether. sometimes african-americans might be more sensitive than criminal justice reforms because right now most of the people in prison are black. won't be long based on the statistics to where there will be another explore.

on the immigration issue, from time to time i had to talk to my black colleagues to say we ought motto go take the easy route, we ought to make sure that we're gog to give the hispanic colleagues of the -- the benefit the doubt to think through the issue. i don't want to break up that coalition. we usually have a general person's agreement in san antonio, texas, there has historically been one black state regtive and one african-american on the city council. they're not black, ty're districts. in the houston area, fort bend county right outside my district, there was a black guy that ran for the district, he chairs the martin luther king committee. he didn't win. he was frustrate add then didn't run the next time. a hispanic lawyer jumped up and won the seat. an african-american beat her.

we have to have a closed door discussion and say we can't alwayscontrol these general person agreements. i say we to try to have the dialogue on nafta athe federal level. the issue of labor unions being concerned by jobs. my part of the country where it was important, the african-american members of congre and teixeira politicians restrained themselves from getting that -- out too far that they were defense the issues because they knew it was important to hispanics as it was the case if it was south africa on the border with with dks instead of mexico. so i think we at least in my backyard we try internly to have the discussions before it blows. sometimes people have a bad attitude. it won't have anything to do with you being black or brown, you got a bad attitude. that had nothing to do with race, it is because i just didn't like that person i can give you an example of where -- where african-american

and hispanic communities in the redistricting process fought against eachther. this comes from rhode island where in the last round of redistricting. >> rhode island? >> yes. >> rhode island? >> i'm just checking. is >> y'all lighten up. >> we not in vermont. i'm guessing. >> the city of province is a majority city. it has six state senate districts. in the redistricng it would have been possible to -- of those six at least have one majority, one district that would elect african-americans and one hispanic voters. instead they engaged in a jeri mandering that cut out minority voters and ended up with one district. because it was a district that favored hispanics, they didn't -- they opposed it somewhat but not as much as -- as vigorously

as they could. it went into litigation we won in federal court and got a court ordered that established two districts. one with hispanics and one with latino voters. using the courts and a league the theory this time around. -- legal theory that can't be used this time around. >> i want to respond to the comments about not wanting a supermajority district, that's true but from my perspective, redistricting is about whose voices get political strength in the political process. and if you have a district that -- that is -- where minority voters control the outcome, that's the voices and interests that will have power in the political process. i'm not apologetic abou having

districts that empower minority voters. >> did you see them coming to your table at the justice department? >> yes, over 30-some years, i -- i seen that a hot of times. and in reaching that 50% that anita mentioned to create a new district under section two, i believe and i'm very hopeful that if -- if you could build a consistent record of working together with latinos and asia americans, then you could add the groups to reach that 50%. if you're fighting with each other, and -- getting evidence in court about the fighting is not going to be hard. then, i think that -- that you know, you -- you lose a real opportunity and given the diversity of the african-american community, now, which includes many people who were -- direct immigrants from africa or haiti and other places, you node to think about

unity within. onother point, e southeast, georgia, north carolina that, mississippi, alabama. places are -- arkansas, place that is have emerging latino majorities are the perfect place to start now to build those alliances to get everyone on the same page and start building power rather than waiting around until there are enough people of both groups to start can you tell us cutting each other's throats. >> in 19 -- the -- the example -- the positive example i gave was in the 80's where black and hispanic legislators successfully challenged new york city and state redistricting. 10 years later, there was a group of -- of within the hispanic community that actually challenged congressman ringal's district. congressman rangel represents

north manhattan. it is central harlem rah to the east is east harlem which is pannish harlem and to the north is washington heights which is dom manipulate con. we had -- we almost had a fiasco in 1992 with blacks and latinos challenging each other over that particular congressional district. it worked out for the best and at the same time i think helping the process was the positive. that was the year, the same time kong -- conresswoman velazquez vause voted in because she was supported in a spanish district in brooklyn. >> i don't think anybody supports reducing the distris. i don't want to give that impression with anything i said. what i'm talking about is reality and not rhetoric. i deal in the real world and not academic. what i'm sing is based on 18 years of experience.

a he getter and most of us in the south can appreciate this point that some of us are wondering if now is not the appropriate time for us to ask is it better to have power or position? is it in the best interests of the people we care about for us to incree our numbers and husband our influence. >> i would suggest to you the only importa color in america is green. if you poor, you're going to catch hell regardless of skin color. so alliss' point about making sure that we understand the importance of -- of voices, that -- that those of us of color who wi fighting for that kind of representation be the is what is critical. i want to say one oth point very quickly, because again, black and brown, i want to give you a positive example outside of the legislature. about what some of us, particularly this the south, are

doing. et elephant in the room is race in the south. -- south. i serve as the d.n.c. for the southern caucus. in the southern caucus, black and brown have come together to talk about sharing power. our executive committee is made up of black and brown. we're coming together. here. in the south. in january, to talk about the election results, to talk about -- i know this is off the point but it is more to those of you out outwhich that want to be part of the conversation. it is time to stop dancing around the issue because unless we deal with the issue of race and get the key to figuring out how to get poor white people to understand that it is not in their best interests to be voting for republicans. they don't hav pot nor window. 0 simon sayi to you that this

redistricting is a big issue but for a lot of us it is not just about black and brown. the coalitions that we're trying to build is with black and brown and poor white folk. >> the -- and the next thing to go into was th issue of class. because what you're also seeing when you -- when you're looking at afican-americans, hispanics, asians who are upper middle class and going higher, that is also playing a role in this whole process and so, as folks on the front line, how have you seen cla emerge as a significant way of suppressing certain folks' voices? >> it is a tough issue. you take the health care debate as an example. some of the town hall meetings that one of my congress members was having.

she was jackson lee. i remember going to one and asking the people who the room that didn't have health insurance to hold their hands up. the whites held their hand up. the people that clearly benefit, the -- many people don't have health insurance and good number white. so it is hard to get them to understand, don't forget about my color because somebody is hispanic. the system played us against one another. it takes time. you know this broader issue by the way, representative, you know, and it really makes sense, it is okay for a black politician and hispanic politician to fight and have a disagreement. we evolve beyond it. two blacks this the senate, sometimes senator west have to remind one another. it is okay if we disagree. sometimes something that may be good for his district in dallas, may motte be -- that's okay. >> not let the system play us against one another. i can disagree with my white members and it is not personal. so even with hispanics, we got

to get beyond that on the growth issue, look, only four or -- four majority states, the first one was from white. the second was new mexico. not a black thing. inate of american, hispanic and anglos. that contutes that -- contutes that majority. third california, fourth and last one right now, according to the federal demographer is texas. it is not a black thing. we -- 12% of the population is -- we don't always live this seg grated neighborhoods anymore. me point y got to take the california model and talk about cumulative voting, if we keep voting on e color hing, because a lot of people are fing mr. out of those historic neighborhoods. >> i just want to suggest that the data shows that there's not a conflict between reognizing and giving voice to minority voters and low income voters in the redistricting context. my evidence for this, comes from the reno case out of north

carolina, where -- where the -- the two two congressional districts, we had two congress the districts that were black districts, the first and 12th. when we looked at the economic dem graphics of those districts, those were the two poorest districts in the state. and beyond the -- the raw economics, the 12th district was an urban district, it united all the way from durham down to charlotte, the inner city areas of the state. the first district was very much a rural district. the issues of the rural poor are different from the urban poor, in the resdefwricting process, you could american interests. i don't see that there's a conflict between trying to- to look at when vois are left out of the process -- >> anita, we admit sometimes for the african-american or hispanic politician to get to votes of the poor rural voters is more

difficult because of the historical things that divide us. even poorer anglo whites sometimes, in my district i do very well with the gay community. i do well with the jewish community. do i wel with -- with wealthy whites because they know in the district. could do a lot worse, we got to go with him. some of the others, the chats issues, it is hard. maybe in time we'll get there. it is difficult for a black member of congress to appeal to those. in south carolina, perfect example. more rural whites. >> i think there's a dynamic between -- between class and political diversity, also in motion here. the black electorate is becoming more politically diverse, and e whit electorate. the one party i don't think w have mentioned is the tea party. they were very much presence in the last redistrict cycle and some interesting things happened

to -- two black republican congressmen were elected in -- in white promptly white congressional districts. another factor is that several members, i understand close to half of the congressional black caucus members are representing districts that are not at least 50% african-america >> yeah. >> which means they're representing whites, latinos and asians and others. so the political diversity is trumping class in some ways. people are crossing racial lines to vote for elected officials because they feel that those people will represent their interests regardless of race. >> i -- the -- the way i disagree with that is - you said that they're crossing racial hines. but the class issue is still prevalent. the reason i bring that up,s because when you look at certain

areas, the atlanta area, where you have high income, largely african-american neighborhoods, you're seeing the exact same thing in other places of his pan ibs, those are now being perceived as suburban districts and you have legislators, republican, saying how can you possibly grasp those areas because you're no -- now talking to them in an economic discussion as opposed to a racial discussion. with that being said, how do you think that the class hment looking at -- at the economic numbers, will play in this process thinking ver the next 10 years. wreck tpwhifing how the neighborhoods are shifting. recognizing how you have african-american neighbors and hispanic neighbors that are becoming poor, and poorer because they're leaving the areas. their interests changes compared to those in the poor areas. how is that level of class going

to play out? i think one thing to be aware of while low income people move frequently, high income people of any choice have more choice of where they move and one thing you need to be aware of, especially in inner city neighborhoods like in atlanta, which right now have relatively scattered minority populations and then all of a sudden, a bunch of luxury condos pop up. and when you thought was an are of -- that is going to give you a majority of a thousand votes, all of a sudden 5,000 people who are going to have a different outlook. >> the old model use to be a high-rise public housing complex, or a nursing center, that is now a condo. and -- the people who are -- their earning power in the condo now changes to -- the dynamic and that's where class comes in. >> right? >> and i think another --

another, another aspect of this is that the supreme court especially justice kennedy as he made clear in the redistricting case, is i think eager to find differences among minority populations and there they found that -- a district, a new minority -- a new latino distribute that mbined urban area that is were latino and rural areas in the valley was not a minority district because they hadn't been working together. they had different interests. it didn't count. it didn't satisfy section two of the voting rights. >> his thinking is that -- so because of their focus, so all of the skin color was the same -- >> he finds focus on skin color offensive. i think that surprised people in texas, because e people--

latinos in austin and houston will vote together. >> maybe kenny should visit texas. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> i guess until this last time and that raises an issue of when e -- where two of the districts flipped. i believe some of the -- some of the state legislative distris in texas and if arizona that we thought were mine nort districts were vigorously challenged by ainge hoe and latino republicans, so the republicans won. one thing we need to do is look afresh at a distribute where minority voters can control the outcome. >> they'll say the last election cycle was a doviation, the hispanic turnout was not as high. those were solid his pang districts. like when i got up on the election, my wife says, you lose, you figured you had it.

i got nervous too, that pea party running against me was hand-some, you know, young kids and all. i got young kids awl a. it is a real challenge, some is on the candidate andot just on us. then your learn about zosing and fire safety if you stay in. that's the nature of politician, you represent your constituency. we change with the times. >> can i respond with the piece about the tea party and i'm tpwhrast glad you raised that and the two congress people of color who were elected. as a floridian, one was from florida and as a current resident of south carolina, a former colleague that will soon be in congress, it is a mistake to believe there was crossover voting for the one from south carolina. the first congressional district that my friend representative

tim scott soon -- is now congressman elect tim scott was elected from, there was no crossover voting from -- from voters of color, not significantly in the first congressional district. the whole point about someof us of color being offended when the issue of color is used to define us and to suggest that you ought to vote for us of color, i think representative congressmanelect scott would agree that he didn't run and that -- in that district as a congressman of can color. elect me because i look like you. if he had done that, he would not be congressman elect. the other point that is critical in that. he was endorsed by the tea party and our general simply, he carried the legislation to repeal health care. it is about speaking to the issues as has been pointed out that are important to people where ever. he's going to congress not because people of color put him there, he's going to congress

because conservative, mainly white republics put him in a district that is a conservative republican district. >> i don't -- for me, i don't see that even being an issue because you have congressman steve cohen who represents memphis and that was a district that harold ford jr. held and his father held. even the last two, the former yor of memphis just ran against him and got dusted -- because cohen was all about the issues. but do i believe that the point -- the point i think you're trying to make is not a question of the crossover vote but how does an election of a tim scott in a largely hite conservative district and alan west in florida, and in memphis, there was plays a role on the judges? when it comes to making the decisions, because typically, the argument has been, need to

have district designed a certain way to elect people that look look -- look like us, but if you have hispanics winning largely african-american areas. powell won that seat, how will that impact those -- those judge decisions as relates to the ruling. i think that's one of the points she was trying to make. >> i do yoling matters. >> class matters. race hearties, they're all important factors but itology has clearly emerged as a very important driver in the process. and the court system and we have to -- we have who lawyers here who will elaborate, is taking that into account. as we go forward in the redistcting process. >> mine says that the legal doctrine has always been about ndidates of choice of black

voters. the right under the voting rights act is for black voters to elect their candidates of choice. if the people are elected are not candidates of choice, it doesn't impact whether or not there's a voting rights act claimed. what mters is whether or not thblack voters vote together, are they cohesive. if not, if they're voting all over the place then they have no voting rights act protection. what is matter is the choice of the voters. >> the point he's making, a we're becoming moreethnicly diverse and politically diverse, that may very welcome to pass, john, and so, the typical -- the typical claims justice department to e courts, may really -- render themselves moot depending on howe the folks have r-voting. we're talking about a process of obtaining districts for the next 10 years. you're projecting how things will change over the next 10 years. could this very well be,

possibly t last round of how we currently look at it, based upon america becoming a majority-minority country? we're one generation from that. i want you to think forward here as you seek to answer the question. >> i think, first of all, the good news is -- for someone who grew up in birmingham, alabama in the 60's and saw the attitudes then, ou got -- you got republicans electing the guy -- for beating a fellow named thurman in the primary, i believe to represent the district that has fort sum. er in it. those republicans -- hell s -- -- a buffer in the district of fort summitter. >> i think that's something to acknowledge and celebrate for what it is but not to be blinded to think that is -- that means i go in other than you know, the

bare facts. again as anita said, the focus is on the voters, and are they're gettin elemented in fair numbers. it is what the voters want and whether minorities are winning on an equal basis. >> you say what the voters want but typically when you have these discussings, they lrgely are, do they look like us? >> what you look at is the election returns. you got the minority and white and mixed. it is not a secret. everyone knows which of th minority precincts, which are -- are the white precincts. you could tell. you couljust look at the -- you look at precincts returns as each of you had, you know who is voting for whom. it is not a secret. we could pay experts a lot of

money. one other thing i like to add. you need to focus on the particular office, usually black, white contests for a particular office and not get sidetracked by -- by a juddish election where everyone is just voting for the bar and not to get sidetracked by the obama election. great as it is. don't try to take those returns to the bank because you know, they happen to ull a of the other stuff that you took to the bank. it is it is not -- >> i thinkman davis figured out that real quick. >> roland, i want to jump in on a point about the question about black republicans. give you a simple example. the vast majority of african-american voters are for affirmative action. right? >> yep. >> if you elect a black person from a republican district, if they go carry a banner for

affirmative action, they probably won't get that nomination again. >> right. >> so what we're saying is, it is the voters. if at some point in history, african-americans are against affirmative action, we would be out of sync. that -- you got me? >> a court can take, a junge can -- judge can take anything they want to justify anything. that's how -- what we learn in law school, how to justify anything. they want -- they have three african-americans that hold statewide office in texas, chief justice of t supreme court. been reelected. another african-american on the supreme court, did not get the nod from the governor. ran against a -- went on the republican side and beat that person. then as an african-american on the railroad commission, regulate oil and gas in texas. somebody take the position, you don't have racial disparitys in texas because you got three black people that elect to stay white. you could just justify anything

you want to justify. but in realy, you would know they can't take positions as would be the case of the position of most hard-core african-americans, or they get in the office. i want to answer the question about whether the increasing diversity of black voters and their political views threaten their voting rights protection and if this is the last decade it matters. while the data shows there's more diversity than in the past, there's still enormous political cohesiveness, enormous solidarity, when we look at the data, that's looking at election returns, it used to be you would find 100% of the plaque voters would support the same candidate. now maybe that quon down to 85%. but that's -- that's still overwhelming political cohesiveness. i'm talking about from the mid 0e's until now. i don't think the change is happening so fast that this is the last time the voting rights act.

>> looked like he wanted to respond. >> i respectfully disagree. if i understand your question. >> which is why it a question. i think there's a shift, there's an i do logical shift going on. in the federal judiciary, when you look at line of cases. i'm not a lower but i pay attention to this stuff because i'm a nager. >> what did you do, stay at holiday inn express? >> and we have to be -- i think we need to think conservatively that the climate today may not work in our best interests. we need a defensive strategy, that's not to assume that the kinds of voting rights decisions that got us to where we are after the last round. i think they're moving in a different direction now and we need to be more conservative in termof how -- how we set, we play the game and the process. a couple of things out there, shape matters, you know, bizarre and elongated districts,

reaching for blacks over here and down the road over there, i think that is out the window. okay? and size matters. attempting to manipulate population deviations. we though it is zero for congress. every congressional district in your state was -- must be exactly the same size. what we have been. what everybody been playing around with up until now is this, so called 10% rule. there's not a rule. i think the rule is going out the window. when we talk about state and local redistricting, we better stay as close to zero polation. the closer we are to zero, the less opportunity there is to critique your plans when they come in. i think those are some of the new directions that this -- this redistricting process is going in. we may -- i think we are seeing the end of an era to use your words in terms of the containeds of standards that are going to be amied against redistricting plans going forward. >> john and anita.

>> i think that's -- i think that's true. it is good advice, the courts are getting progressively hostile. one thing, especially those of you in the nonsection five states need to try to do as best you can is have your plan -- your alternative plan better than their plan in these racially neutral standards. lower deviation, get the districts as compact as you can. try and avoid splitting county boundaries and other boundaries. try to make - if you can, have a plan that looks better by all of the racially neutral standards that the courts like so much, then -- then you are, well on your way to showing that they adopted their man with a racially discriminatory purpose and knocking it out. >> i was in a fderal district court -- district court in the district ocolumbia yesterday morning, arguing that section five of the voting rights act is actual, at least arguing for thatide. i have no -- no doubt that the

-- that we're in severe danger when it it comes to the voting rights act and section five of the voting rights act. there are two cases pending that challenge the constitutionality, one from alabama and one from north carolina. thplaintiffs have the cases on the st track. there's every possibility before the election, there's some possibility that before elections in november 2012 that supreme court could have ruled that section five is unconstitutional. so i don't mean to -- to say there's no threat to the voting rights act. my point was about the conditions that give rise to the justification, for having those protections in place. >> one more mnkey wrench. florida. i had congresswoman karen brown on the morning show. she was dead set against a stayed wii ballot initiative that determined how districts would be drawn. what was interesting, though,

she -- she was -- she was absolutely against it. but the aclu, the league of women voters and the ncaa -- naacp were for it. how do you possibly see state ballot initiatives being used to determine how districts are drawn based upon that -- that initiative passing in florida? >> there are about a -- attempting to change the rules of the game. that's ectly what they're doing. they're rewriting the rules for how redistricting is done. >> you say they. who is "they"? the issue of thrrd was, you said it, all of these weirdly drawn districts. with the initiative, they said, let's not look at the crazy districts, let's have sensibly drawn stricts that people can clearly understand and you have people that who, again, those for that, the coalition was

pretty interesting that when you hear black members of complaining, saying this is going to threaten our seats, the very people that typically have been there, their allies said no, we're for that initiative. i think it is tough to make a strong public policy argunt to convince voters to be against one of these, so called independent commissions. we don't have ballot initiative in texas. thank god. we would be like california and call kind of stuff. >> constitutional amendment. u got to run it through legislature, you can't just amend the constitution on the pat with, you got to come by us to get it on there. if it is on the ballot, if you could go to florida -- if you could do that in florida, if you could do that, it would be hard to argue against it. even if you have this independent body drawing the

lines, they got to comply with what is left of the voting rights act, you made a m koent mr. about us being a majority minority country. i hope i live hong enough and i'm still in my right hind when i'm going to see some of my anglo colleagues that vote against the voting rights act, no. in texas, we got to have that. at some point, my hipanic -- >>ly hispanic going to vote. they had peoplefighting me on it. they dig up all of my best speeches. they -- >> and -- the reason i raise that, i certainly believe that -- that we are seeing the -- the frankly -- the roots if you will of that -- of that argument, something i call white victimhood right now. you hear it when you listen to glern beck and those -- and you

hear, i hope they don't treat us like we did them. the next generation,tew stuff is going to change. that will be a very interesting argument. >> you take this vote on imgrigse as example manipulate read of history. you went to school in texas, my read on history, the impress sareos, you could settle their handyou got to do three things, you got to learn spanish. you got to convert to catholicism. and you can't ve slaves. what do you think they were really upset out? what's that again? i didn't major in history, so i won't go there. as woe move out of th neighborhoods and our population changes, a hot of us don't think about the way you vote in a corporation, you vote on a cumulative sector, you don't go to say people, who want to get rid the c.e.o., it is a

cumulative voting. as we integrate our neighborhoods with record foreclosures, a lot of people moving into neighborhoods that they never thought about moving into, they get them cheap. people moving out, they thought were their neighborhoods. it'll change over time. i think there will always be some version of the voting rights act but this notion of a bipartisan independent commission, i don't think we should rule without it. i supported it in texas and got criticism. i supported it when it wouldn't pass. i don't know if i supported it when it will pass. i'm a politician, you got to understand both sides. the issue is how do you make it truly independent? got me? everybody is against ugly district. to senator jerry that did the salamder. everybody against it until they think about it. they find out the communities of interest, people in buck head may have more in common with somebody out in the suburbs than they think they do.

and when they all end up in a nice heightal compact district, you may have a mess. it is hard to argue against a independent commission if the voters have a chance to vote on it. that's tough. >> and the florida lalt initiative. >> it is important to remember in each of the commissions one standards they have is with the voting rights act. i think florida tting up guidin los is a gift to lawyers. it gives you a whole lot of things to argue about and it is -- it is just -- it is going to cost the state of florida millions of dollars in attorney's fees and going to cost everyone else in attorney's fees. -- the california -- has done this with a very elaborate procedure to insure a lack of partisanship on the members. it will be interesting to see how that works out because there are some delicate issus in california, especially for african-american communities there. but generally, youw, the --

in states the republicans control, they're in favor of independent comissions in districts with democrats control they're -- >> shocking. >> amazing coincidence. >> i want to point out, that we're out of time for redistricting reform process to impact this next round of redistricting. but i think the issue gets at the fundamental question of what is a redistricting boss and who should do it? who should be in control? i think it is a policy issue like every other policy issue. the people we're holding accountable ought to be the ones that do it. legislatures who hr from their constituents they are in my mind good people to though what communities of intst interest should be brought tole together. we need communities involved in the process. i'm a strong defender of having legislative --

>> i want jo to answer this. the reason i raise has and i go back to the earlier point in terms of how people from both parties view this process. i do believe that folks that lean with -- who are democrat spend more of their time, as john said, assuming that games won will be there. the experience shows us with the federalist society and various conservative think tanksthey're not thinking necessarily about this round, but they're thinking about -- about 10 years from now and years from now. they're testing small changes now, the -- to see how they could be effective to spread in a ider area come 020 and then 2030. so that's one of the reasons i made the point in terms of thinking more long-term as opposed to well, what is going

to happen in the next six to nine months when you have folks out this who are well funded. well funded by multi-millioires and billionaire who is are saying, what can we do today that is the difference maker in 2020 and in the very same group that is are progressively democrat and then they're flat-footed, they supposed to be planning for 20, 10 years. john, go ahead. >> independent redistricting commissions. you need to judge whatever process by -- by the results. you know, i'm -- i'm an avid student of democracy. but at the end of the day, if the roof, th current rules got you where you are now, there are 44 members of african-american members of congress, there are 200 ste legislators, 150 senators and 450 members of the

lower house in the country. what you need to decide is in your stae, is the process they're talking about, what ever label -- they could call it label, independent, none offer them independent by the way. even if california, when they got down to the -- to the -- they had something like 30,000 people apply initially. to get on the commission 37 they got it down to 60 names and then the -- then the four legislative leaders of the california legislature get to veto half of the final . so that is not really independent. okay? there's no quote, process that is totally free of -- of partisan input. even in iowa, they -- another model they hold up, the legislature gets to vote up or down at least on what this quote independent commission does. you need to figure out in y michigan state, in my locality and am i going to wind up with more on the table or less. i don't care what they call it, it sounds good but what is the

result going to be. you're not going to be -- to have -- have the same or better, you're not better off than where you are now, you should not be for it. >> we have a time for questions. the camera is there. want three folks to step up at a time. come here and step up the steps so they could see you versus having your back to the camera. you have a question, step up so you could ask about the - the panel. take three at a time. >> so, then -- once you folks can answer the question, again we look for questions, not comments. if it goes too long, i will pull your coat. let also make clear that -- old phil donahue, don't touch the mike, i got it. i will pop your hand if you touch the microphone. cool. your name, where you from, your question? >> state senator, hare miller. >> tennessee. >> can you anticipate a ton of lawsuits. give an example of tennessee, we have 64 republicans, 34 democrats and one independent.

in the senate 2013. i agree with you, roland, i don't think they're going to take any prisoners, when they start redrawing those district lines. so we can anticipate a lawsuit, do you anticipate lawsuits coming throughout this country from the parties that are in the minorities? >> heck yes. republicans have more power on the state legislative level than they have had in 50 years. the end game is all about lawsuits, republicans are far more prepared and far more resours. they focus on this much better than we have. we have been quietly having discussion. we not nearly where they are. we go to the state legislatures and fight on budget issues. they know to cut and plan in the end game for lawsuits. >> my point is not only yes will there be lawsuits but we need to be entering and redistricting and preparing now for them. >> name.

>> i'm i'm joe from california, and i'm on the planning commission. we deal with the housing elements and what is going on now, we're dealing with in 20-year increments of housing. what we're doing is moving the housing in to middle class neighborhoods. now back in the day, the change in the names instead of the game. we used to call themrojects. now they call them mixed housing. we used to call them duplex and now they condos. one of my commissioners got real uneasy. he said in 20 years, this will noreflect the community that i thought i was living in. theying rio they think redistricting is taking place by way of the housing element and the housing requirement. what do you have to say regarding that? >> the question. thanks a lot. >> dispersement. eye agree. the changing housing pattes that one word mentioned, foreclosure is moving people out. and moving people in to communities, that's one e

reasons that we can't attempt to be overscientific about drawing districts and we have to think long-term and housing policy or lack there of, more -- foreclosure crisis is driving a lot of what you just described. >> john? >> no. the more concentrated you are, the easier to draw districts. there's societal benefits by having desegregated housing and no free lunch out there. >> in a big state like california, what is california? 40 million? 30 million. >> it is tough, you did elect african-americans and as a attorney general in california. maxine waters districts. those districts are becoming more and more hispanic. if it is a school board or city council you could do it. there's a reason why san francisco before the race issue came up, use culative voting. as big as california is and as big as your population is, you

just want to stay in the neighborhood, that's historically plaque, you got to move to houston or sout carolina or something. get er it. >> state of illinois, chaired the redistricting committee in illinois state senate we're not quite -- >> you're name. >> kwame rowe, we're not quite out of time in illinois. this week we passed, we passed voting rights expansion with regards to redistricting that would codify at justice kennedy in the bartlett decision was -- said waspermissible which is the crossover coalition and influenced districts. i want to -- to -- i want to -- anita. >> you're clapping. >> i think that's a wonderful model. there's a california votg rights act. there's important ways that legislatures can add to the protections of the federal voting rights act. that's an excellent step.

>> you also see kwame raul walking around with the cane, the president had bausted hip. all y'all do over 35, stop playing basketball? it is over. go play golf like me. you don't walk around with a cane. don't play golf like you play, because you going to -- >> the way you wing -- >> i broke yourpocketbook, that's what we talking about. we'll leave that alone. >> ken duncan, state representative from chicago. question for aneat a john. you mentioned john, regarding the prison population, is this any pending law our lawsuits that can help us really put that back in the ight form? that is the districts. their home districts where they were arrested compared to those promptly none black communities, or hispanic communities where they're being counted fo c.b.g. monies, federal accountability and state and local accountability in tems of dollars. now votes.

what is pending? >> i think you and senator sponsored an m.b.c.s.l. resolution on this subject. there are three states in the country that passed state laws already on prisoner count. senator thompson and assemblyman perry here in new york led the fight to pass new york's proner count law. so you do have model statutes. i think you could work from. maryland, new york in terms of how it is done or being done in new york. we're working with -- with department of corrections to figure out how to reallocate 60 thouks addresses back to -- back to the -- to the prisoners permanent residence as opposed to where they're being counted now in the prin. >> i'm curious -- jus popped in my head with that question. if you're going down that path, do you -- potentially see a problem where the critics will say, wait a minute, we allow

clean students to e able to vote in the place where they go to school. all of -- they're living somewhere else, could they use the same argument to justify how they count prisoners? >> people not in the country legally, so you can't -- you count them but you don't calculate them in terms of drawing the line. >> the amount of college students and prisons doesn't hold, because the issue with the prisons is partly the fact that near not actually vote bug they did pros natalie minority. and prisoners don't get the choice of voting where -- whether incarcerate ordinary in the home state, they don't get to vote at all but because they're disproorganizationer natalie mine authority, it impact the communities they come doctor. >> is it where a.m. university

has been. they been fighting the county for a long time because they don't want that promptly black college impacting those local elections. again. i'm just thinking out of -- in terms of how critics may see it. if you're advocating on behalf of those students in those areas how can you k-you oppose the prisoners in the same areas. >> this went to the united states supreme court, my daughter could vote at columbia, new york, or -- it is their choice. >> let them make the choice. that's the difference. the stubts have a choice. they can vote where they in college or the dorm or where they're from. but the inmates don't have a choice. they're not voting. >> i -- i like to add a wrinkle to this. first of recall, fair view, the prayer view voting case was in 1976 was the first one i worked on when i was in the justice departnt and you know, there's some good steady custors out there.

people, people are keeping us in business. buthere's a wrinkle on the rich counting. that's you know, it is very important in new york and houston where -- where the prisoners go out in these all-white republican areas and build up their population. this the deep south, a lot of those rural areas are promptly african-american. and they're -- they're in area that is are losing population and if you start taking parchment out of mississippi and take angola out of louisiana and moving them out, there's people here who might have a real hard time making up that population. and that is a good illustration of how -- how you really need to look at your own district and look at what is on the ground, who is there, who votes doesn't vote? who is a je hovevess witness. get out and drive around and know the areas because there are lots of pitfalls out there. >> questions. me, where you from? >> i'm representing the

geraldine thomson from florida, where we now have rules that the legislature will use to draw district lines. i heard if you don't like the sight of blooder, particularly your own, you stay away from redistricting. >> or florida. >> y'all alwayshave drama. >> we do. >> my question is, how do we -- how do we make sure that there's inclusion and there's fairness in appointing people to serve on the redistricting committees that are -- that our legislature will have because those decisions are made by the people in power. so my question is do you have some thoughts or some ideas or strategies in terms of how we could be involved in the process? . .

the challenge for us knew members in particular -- it is that number crunching stuff. this is not the prettiest stuff. this is the hard. this is the ground. you can really have an influence. group of north carolina -- there are national groups looking at putting up money. this matters. you got to put a lot of work in. in florida, primarily for your constituents -- if they we draw your district and your house is going to be in it, you might get foreclosed on. your family is over there until you see if you win again. it is serious stuff. >> we have time for two more questions.

in the new jersey state senator and i have been to this process before. i do not have the luxury of time. in january of this year, going into the junior election, we will be in redistricting again. my question is to the justice department's and others. what is the earliest point in time that we can involve organizations like yours in the process. we have been to court before. from the black caucus perspective and latino caucus, we need to file with our attorneys from day one. >> i think that each of you should go home and the deal with the voting rights act. you need to learn the website

and wander around it. there is a contact list that has two attorneys responsible for redistricting. up.day morning, call them of you should be monitoring systems and build a relationship with the people and the staff to get a sense of where they are coming from and keep them alert to facts as they develop rather than waing until the plan is passed and you have a disaster sitting there and expect them to come to your rescue. there are not as many of them as there are states and counties and school boards and cities out there. >> do you anticipate with attorney general eric colder and

president obama, do you anticipa this justice department being very aggressive in looking at the views of districts and seats over the next six months? are they gearing up for what is about to come down? >> the department of justice is saying publicly that even though they're under attack in the courts, they will vigorously enforce it. they will not be intimidated by these challenges to the constitutionality. by the same token, they are getting thousands of submissions, so you really have to get on their radar screen and get your data together so that you can access them. the other resources will give you to get assistance is the redistricting institute. you will see a lot of resources there. >> are you seeing progressive

donors coming to your organization? are you seeing an uptick in that area as well? >> yes, the donors are coming to the table but they are slow and not as much as they need. there are resources out there th are non-partisan. you have to work for community- based organizations and other nonprofit groups, but there is money out there. >> anita, were you at the prayer breakfast? in the black church, you always ask for money. that was a setup question for anita. your answer should have been, "no, the money is not flowing. it needs to follow a lot faster." always ask for more money. >> i wanted to ask senator rice

-- you need to pull your resources. you need to hire your lawyers and you will not have enough lawyers to hire the lawyer, but if you pull your resources, -- they have already asked me to give them your district. they know what not to give you if you do that. >> columbus, georgia state rep. how do you suggest that we develop the best strategy to attack this redistricting? >> at least a committee, a task force. you need a working group of legislators and staff. your staff is one to do all work. -- born to do all the work. -- going to do will work.

>> i think that that says it all. all of us are not want to be experts on all these positions. you need to pick out which colleague is really going to read that and understand law, or go to me of the gray hairs. people who have been through it. you need to cool -- pool resources. >> othe big question is where are you going. the democrats will have an interest in cutting the fat so that those voters can be used elsewhere. you need to watch out that they are not cutting muscle. you need to get together on what you think your best strategy is

an keep in mind were you are going. >> big government groups and community. it do your homework. figure it out. understand. >> anita? >> they need more resources out there. >> somebody was paying attention. [laughter] we are out of time. give it up for our panel. we certainly appreciate it. thank you a lot. >> give it >> the 111th congress ended

earlier this month. we are looking back at the farewell speeches of all the members and the incoming speeches of the new members. we will broadcast the departing speech of center -- of representative a extra -- representative hoekstra. during prime time, weked executive power with former independent counsel kenneth starr and attorney john yoo, who wrote the memos on torture during the george w. bush administration. at kennecott, "q&a" from london. then, radios garrison keeler talking about humor in public life.

one of the military commanders along the afghan/pakistan border today says recent flooding in pakistan has hurt efforts to carry out operations. while briefing pentagon reporters, he said there was no way to completely secure the border. this is 35 minutes. >> this is jim turner in the pentagon briefer. can you hear me? >> i can hear you loud and clear, jim. >> good morning in afghanistan. we would like to welcome you to the pentagon briefing room. colonel viet luong is commander of task force rakkasan and the third brigade combat team, 101st

airborne division. the 3800 soldier brigade was loaned to afghanistan earlier this year. in february, the brigade assumed operation responsibilities in khost province and pateka. it relinquished pateka to another division. it has since conducted operations in [unintelligible] it took regional command south in the horn of [unintelligible]

this is colonel luong's first briefing in this format. he joins us from salerno in khost province. he would give us a briefing of current operations and then it will take your questions. >> it is a pleasure to be here to talk about task force rakkasan. galilee defended bass cone -- bascone against an onslaught in the battle of the bulge. i think it is a proper it to provide a brief overview of what task force rakkasan has accomplished in the last 11 months in the gallant tradition of the 101st airborne division.

our brigade combat division, task force rakkasan, is formed, one of the most storied units in the u.s. army. this is the most deployed unit in the army today, having depleted three full rotations in iraq. we are about to finish our second deployment in afghanistan. the brigade also has the distinction of being the only airborne air assault brigade that has participated in every major conflict since our inception in world war two, and the first u.s. unit to set foot on mainland japan in 1945. our primary mission here in afghanistan is to protect the population and increase the capacity, capabilities, and credibility of the afghan national security forces as well as the afghan government. my task force was initially responsible for the province's of khost and pateka for the

first seven months of our rotation, an area that is 30,000 square kilometers, and shares a border with waziristan and pakistan. in september, we handed over the responsibility of patkea province and have since then retain responsibility for khost province. our overarching task is counterinsurgency operations. the key task under our campaign plan includes but is not limited to neutralizing the insurgency, combined action with afghan security forces to build competency, capability, and credibility with the afghan populace, unable effective governance -- enable effective governance at the provincial level, and develop agriculture. in the last 11 months, we have

seen gradual but measurable prom -- progress. the combined coalition has taken approximately 2000 fighters out of the fight of the insurgency. we are capable of conducting operations in many of the different places here. the security space that we have created has allowed government officials to reach their own people, many of them isolated for years. my teammates worked side-by-side with the provincial and district leaders to improve local governments. in addition, in this largely agricultural region, our teammates from the u.s. department of agriculture and the national guard agribusiness development teams from indiana and oklahoma have been directly assisting the afghan provincial director of agriculture, irrigation, and livestock,

training and increasing afghan agriculture projects. under the membership of our provincial reconstruction team and usaid colleagues, we are taking part in the management of regions previously controlled by the taliban. we are starting to see elders coming to regional surest -- shuras by the thousands, something i did not see 11 months ago. people are going to school, playing cricket, and flying kites, activities forbidden under taliban rules. for me it is a subtle sign of hope. for the first time since i have been here, the locals are indicating that people are beginning to feel that security is much, much better. and more importantly, for the

first time, they are feeling the provincial government is now working for the people. in short, while fragile, we are seeing progress across the board. with that, i welcome your questions. >> i am with the associated press. we hear often during these briefings that there are subtle signs of progress. what more do you need to see in the next few months from the afghans, particularly developing a civilian capacity so they can take over control and the u.s. can start drawing down the number of forces? >> as far as taking over control, that has to be based on conditions on the ground. in khost, there is some promise. as far as the new government of khost, i am very optimistic

about having a great leader in government. it has been a hard time for us. during my first several months, we had a guy that was corrupt. we were able to have him removed from his position. we were followed by a guy that was halfway literate. about six months ago, we were able to gain a very competent leader. as stated in my opening statement, people are starting to feel there is progress. in addition to that, over the last year or so, in the two provinces i am responsible for, we have gained an additional 6000 afghan national security forces. we have several courses we run to build the capacity, running their and colorado school. we have also assisted in their basic training.

the most important aspect of what we do is combined action. we eat, sleep, and fight alongside our afghan counterparts. they are getting better and better each day. over the next couple of years, based on conditions on the ground, we will work to transition village by village, district by district, and hopefully the province overall. >> colonel, being in khost, you are facing the honey network -- hakani network. how much you -- how much are you seeing of how cony -- hakani fighters in the area? are you going to stop the flow of fighters if you close down that base? what are some of the alternatives you can use tax --

can use it? >> let me speak about the two main topics. the hakkani network -- locally, i can tell you the hakkani network is sort of on its heels. we have captured and killed many, many of their fighters and midlevel leaders. the senior leadership routinely hides in the tribal areas of pakistan now for the fear of being captured and killed. in addition, the effectiveness of their attacks that can cause deaths or injuries, or accuracy of indirect fire, has dropped by 50%. on top of that, we have increased fourfold the number of operations and controls up to 12,000 in the next year. 600 main operations. 50% of the sigint is ansf

initiated. we were looking to make contact with them. holistic play, -- holistic plea -- holistically, we've had a huge impact on m-- the hakkani network. it is seasonal. there were conversations about leaders losing credibility in their jobs. we were able to, based on good pattern analysis, good coordination, and good intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations, were able to catch a lot of them through these gaps, and were able to destroy a large number of them as fighters. we have taken a toll on their operations. certainly, their effectiveness has taken a toll. henceforth, they have changed

their strategy to not extolling a large number of fighters anymore. that makes it more difficult for them to supervise and leaves them more vulnerable to our operation. at the same time, it allows us to close down places like khospera. we were there because at one time it was pretty important. we controlled a couple of infill routes coming from pakistan. as we were able to effectively target the hakkani network, we feel this combat power could be used in a population center to better secure the population. >> i am from nbc news.

he said there has been an increase fourfold in the number of patrols in operation. can you expand on that a little bit? is that specifically in khost province? do you have the total number of patrols and operations, or even a ball park? also, could you explain a little bit more about your sense of confidence about the situation on the border? it sounds as if you feel as if -- explain to me. do you feel you are confident enough that the border is no longer porous, and that is a reason you can close combat outposts, or have you essentially given up on trying to stop terrorists coming across the border and are instead focusing on population centers that are going to go to? >> i can answer that. we have a close to an exact number of operations.

operations have increased as long as we have found that area of operations for fault. that i can speak is a bit about. in addition to that, increased operations across the area to include rt south -- i had to fight a pretty vicious fight down there. our strategy has been to increase, to capitalize on success. we think we have some momentum. right now, i am executing the winter campaign plan. it is not the primary fighting season. we will not allow the honey -- hakkani network to be able to rest and refit. as far as the border itself, it is not easy to say that we can stop forces coming through the border. 261 kilometers is what i have.

i chose very early on in this fight to disrupt the focus on the area based on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations -- to do targeted operations to catch the guys coming across. but they do have many places that can come across. therefore, i have been focusing my operations on safe areas, and fight them closer to the interior, where they have to train, bed down, and store their cachets. to secure the border, it takes a lot of effort on the other side, in pakistan. it takes the tribe to reach agreement. we need their support as well to keep these guys outside, but more and more, as our footprint is expanded along security line of effort, it is harder and harder for these guys to come and bed down in these villages.

i can tell you a couple of specific instances where we have told these guys that are not welcome here. it makes it harder on them. we are aware of the safe havens on the other side of the border. >> i am from cnn. i need to keep following up on this point to make sure we understand what you are telling us, which is -- are you saying in the area of the border where you are responsible for, you are basically in fact saying you are giving up on the border crossing points because you cannot really control the border and you will fight them as they come into afghanistan? i am puzzled by this. would you need more troops, more surveillance drones, more surveillance capability?

is this part of the overall military strategy now? you cannot control the border, so wait for them to come in? >> i did not say that we have chosen to give up on the border. as a matter of fact, we have more than a dozen points where we have u.s. forces to back them up within several kilometers of the border. but to secure the border in the traditional sense, if you are talking about our own border down in mexico, in the southwestern united states -- that is not what we are doing. and it takes an inordinate amount of resources to do that.

you can look at this as a defect -- a defense in depth, where you have front-line defenders would start on the pakistan each side. they have hundreds of border checkpoints backed up by checkpoints on our side, manned by afghan police. we back those guys up with u.s. and ana forces. we really hand over the border peace to the afghan forces. you can get more effect by defending in depth than you can in a line. we pick and choose where the best places that we can defend the border are. then, we are able to target those guys were they feel safe. we feel that has been the key to our success. >> are you concluding that it was naive to say we can stop them from coming across through

the border? in the time you have been there, how many border spots have you shut down, and how would you describe the capability of u.s. forces right along that border in your area? >> i have shut down an area just a couple of weeks ago. we were able to have some depth to be able to stop these guys close to the population. it is a single platoon out of dozens of platoons i have. you are not talking about a large amount of force. we are making enough momentum now in some of these districts that i feel we can bring this platoon of the border to be able

to conduct more population centric counter insurgency. we still have forces out there that are conducting combined actions with all three of the teams -- afghan border control, afghan uniformed police, and afghan national army. >> thank you, colonel. first of all, happy holidays and happy new year's to you all over there, and thank you for your service. what methods do you have as we enter the new gear, 2011? what message do you have for the afghans? how do you feel your troops are firing in the new era? as for pakistan concern about possible terrorists -- to you

have a message for pakistan or afghanistan in the new year? >> for the afghans, i wish them a happy new year. remains strong. there is hope. we will be here with you as long as it takes, as long as nato is committed to this operation. we will be for your side. to pakistan, i am looking forward to the opportunity to have the 11th corps commander here -- i had a great interaction with him as well as the sixth grade commander

sixth brigade commander. within the next days, we will have another meeting with the 11th corps. also, my condolences for the sacrifices that the pakistan military has taken over this very long and torturous conflict. the same message goes out to my pakistan comrades. we are with you, shoulder to shoulder. i think together, we can beat this. to my soldiers, near and dear to my heart, thank you for your service and sacrifice. we have many heroes here. 210 purple hearts. 24 bronze star with feller. two silver stars just pinned on. this war has been fought and carried on the shoulders of our young servicemen and women. my hat is off to them. >> can you tell us if you expect to close any more stops in your area in the short term or the

medium term? also, could you describe a little bit about the trends in violence and how the insurgents are fighting and whether those attacks are on the decline? he seemed to be suggesting that their attacks were declining. >> it is difficult to tell. that is conditions based. eventually, as we phase out over the years, those stops will be closed down or transferred over to afghan security forces. but in the near term, in task force rakkasan, we are not planning on closing any. the question of the level -- i tried to put some fidelity and do quantitative analysis as far as the trend itself.

if you are talking about pure numbers, those numbers have been going down in the last eight months, if you take the last eight months average. those numbers have been lower. i stated before, 50% of those actions were initiated by us. we were going out there with ambushes looking to make contact. even though we have taken a lot of operations to drive up the number of significant activities, the numbers have remained constant. i spoke about a 50% drop in the effectiveness of less trained fighters, coming through. a lot of them are getting killed or captured. they are losing a lot of experience. in addition to that, lately the trend has been assassination, because that is all they can resort to doing, to target very,

very vulnerable afghan officials. in addition to that, they have caused a tremendous amount of civilian casualties across the board. the i e d is -- they use a lot of pressure plate i edie's here -- the use a lot of pressure plate ieds here, which killed a lot of people. up in dan paton, while we had a shura with the village elders, a very tumultuous region. the people were beginning to feel a sense of security. we had called a former mushin -- mujadeen shura to try to get some of these people connected with the government. we were attacked by fire. it caused 831 dead and wounded

one local child. that is about -- it caused 83 wounded including one local child. you have one or two motivated guys that do not care about civilian kedging -- civilian casualties. it is easy for them to get mixed in among the populace and blow up in moscow or school and kill a bunch of innocent civilians. -- and blow up a mosque or school and kill a bunch of innocent civilians. >> it sounds like you have close relations with the pakistan military. are you able to coordinate operations with them? when you plan an operation, do tell pakistan you may be driving an enemy across the border and they can position forces to stop them? or has it not gone that far yet? >> i will tell you i have not

gone that far yet. i was really looking forward to this last campaign, in which we can do complementary operations. that was part of my campaign goal, was to get to that. i think the floods over the summer have drilled that effort. our brothers in pakistan are focused on humanitarian assistance operations. there is some stuff in the works right now. that is going to be one of the topics we will discuss next week at this conference, to be able to do complementary operations. i know of north, in those areas, last year, the fourth brigade was able to reach complementary operations. that is what we have been trying to replicate down here. we could do better with that. we are looking forward to more cooperation with pakistan forces.

>> your successor unit will probably be doing that sort of thing? >> i did not get the last question. can you repeat? >> the unit that follows after task force rakkasan will probably be doing complementary operations? >> yes. you know, my plan is to work with both our afghan security forces and the pakistani to plan the first 90 to 60 days of operations for the follow on task force, which would include complementary operations. i am a positive, optimistic person. i am looking forward to be able to do that and gain a lot of good effects across the board. >> colonel, nathan hunch, with

the "wall street journal." how effective has the coalition ban in disrupting the financing of the hakkani network, often described as a mafia-like operation that depends on things like smuggling. you have described the fight in kinetic terms and in terms of how much you have been able to degrade it insurgents on the battlefield. how has the coalition been in removing the source of the financing? >> that is a very good question. we have been trying to get after that financing stream. it is very difficult to do. here in afghanistan, the use of an informal system. we have targeted some and have had some effect, but it is very hard to track the money.

it is all done over paperwork and a series of very complex transactions between individuals. one of the ways we have been able to mitigate the threat financing is a more judicious application of how we contract project, how we manage that from inception to the end. unfortunately, several years ago, that was one of their venues for them to be able to attack these projects. i think we are doing a pretty effective job at providing oversight and supervision over these projects that we built. >> a quick follow-up. can you quantify how much you have in funds at your disposal right now? >> can you repeat the question? >> i am trying to get a sense of the funds that have been at your disposal.

>> really, i can tell you -- i can tell you what we have committed here in the different provinces. i have it broken down here in front of me. in paktea, we have about $42 million in ongoing funds. in addition to that, we have completed about $25 million of work. in knost, -- host, -- khost, we have $29 million in ongoing projects, and we have completed projects in health care, roads, and rule of law. the funding is out there. one of the things i had to do when i arrived in the theater was really look at the judicious application of the fund and be a good, responsible source. the money is out there.

in addition to that, we have been trying very hard to have transparency. we have been trying very hard to get afghans involved at the provincial level. we have that at the district level. we are beginning to have elders from villages participate in the project nomination process. it is for the people. it is through the people. in iraq, we were tracking it by amount of dollars spent. i did not really like that. i think the effect on the ground, that you are able to provide, or more importantly the problem districts that can use the money and projects to provide for their own people. >> with that, we will turn it back to you for any closing remarks you would care to make. >> again, i would like to thank

you for the opportunity to talk about task force rakkasan and what our host partners have accomplished here in the provinces. i could not be more proud of my soldiers for the work they have done in the last 11 months. as we are ending our tour, we are anticipating the arrival of our next task force. i have known the colonel for many, many years. he is an outstanding soldier and leader. his team has been readying for this mission throughout the next year -- threat the last year. the gains here are fragile and reversible. my focus will be to make sure we have campaign continuity with task force duke. they have the leadership and professionalism to capitalize on the work we have started here. i am confident they will not only continue in the footsteps, but also forge new paths for which the people here can take

charge of their destiny. finally, i wish to thank my soldiers and their families. the task force could not have accomplished this all without the support of our nation, our friends, and families. while we missed being home for the holidays, i can tell you my soldiers are proud to be serving our nation, particularly in the most tumultuous regions of afghanistan during the most critical period in our nation's history. i am humbled to be serving besides -- beside these young men and women. best wishes to you in the new year. >> thank you, colonel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thenth hundred 11-- the 11thd

congress ended earlier this month. we are looking back at farewell speeches of the parking -- of departing members and those coming to replace them. we will start with representative hoekstra, and then the man taking his seat. and we have speeches from transportation director james oberstar. starting at 8:00 p.m., we will look at executive power and employment with former independent counsel kenneth starr and attorney john yoo, who wrote the memos on torture during the george w. bush administration. at 10:00 p.m., from london with the and "new york times" bureau chief. then the radio personality garrison keeler talking about public life.

the supreme court is considering an employment law to require workers to check immigration status in a national database. it checks and business licenses of employers who hire illegal immigrants and knowingly. whether a state can require participation in the database. janet napolitano, who was arizona's government -- arizona's governor at the time, the bill into law. the oral argument is just over an hour. >> case 09115. =-mber of commerce bursa's versus whiting. >> there was a question of how to regulate worker authorization, and it was converted into a core concern of immigration policy by the passing of the immigration reform and control act.

this court has characterized that change as providing a comprehensive scheme for dealing with those issues. that characterization is obviously apt, because congress provided for an exhaustive and exclusively federal method of bringing to the attention of federal authorities problems and work authorization, the manners by which that could be investigated, the manners by which that could be adjudicated, all of which can be controlled as a member of exclusive federal activity. judicial review goes exclusively to the federal courts of appeal. the sanctioning provisions are explicit, clear, and balanced, and for good reason. congress realized in this congress that if you over in fo in one direction, if you try to deter the hiring of unauthorized workers, you run a very serious risk of causing employers to bear on the side of not hiring