to support what the chairman from lifornia said, my support is the issue of the government being capable of dealing with the infrastructure and developing the rail or the water, correcting the water pipes. the capitalist system has to deal of doubt. the government has not shown at they are efficient in spending our money. taking it from us and taxes from businesses and then circulating it through washington and then back out for the states and saying that is sufficient, i don't think that is and never has been. making the government smaller and getting things in the hands of the people of the local communities, they will handle the infrastructure. b of a structure will be corrected to support the capitalist system -- i guess it

is my point as an independent from big government to small government. the federal government needs to shrink and shrink in a big way. host: is the federal government capable of that? guest: in many ways, the federal government is the only entity that can do these things. much of this infrastructure is not at the local level. the planning, the connections for all that, we are aation of 50 states. we're competing with other countries. you cannot have -- many of our cities are located in places that transcend states. we have to states and the district of columbia in this region. there are other places where you have to cross lines. energy. power grids -- these are things that transcend regions.

this is an important role for the federal government to make those investments. these are not things best left to the private sector. it is not in my interest or anyone's interest to spend significant investments to upgrade that infrastructure. the costt want to bear -- individual airlines do not one to bear the cost of upgrading and airport. that is what the tax system is designed for. the private-sector is a partner. they are the ones who will use it. they need to be engaged. relying on them to take the lead or do the planning, how to adjudicate between all these interest and make sure we ramp up is not something that historic private sectors do. host: the president said it is fully paid for. you said it will find out the

details in the budget. what are those details? are we talking about fees? gut: we will probably see a few things. we'll see a shifting of priorities in this budget. we'll see the president putting his money where its mouth is in terms of the priorities he laid out in the state of the union. he has talked about things sh as a five-year freeze in the budget. the two-year freeze in federal pay. that will give them some wiggle room to move things around. it was also about how we set our priorities in taxation. we may be decision in december to connue to extend tax cuts for the very wealthiest 2% among us. we have not talked about

investment in private sector investment today. we have seen a decline in the united states in private sector investment, even alongside tax cuts for the wealthiest. we need to rethink that strategy. i think those are the questions we are likely to saee in some of those decisions. is heather guest boushey and we're focusing on unemployment, job issues, economic and issues. you're on the air. caller: 1 the interstates were expanded, for every gallon of gasoline sold, one nickel of the cost went to the infrastructure to maintain the roads. today, i believe the major

portion of our problem is the fact that gasoline tax dollars thato into the federal budget do not stay as a designated spending. as a result, they go into the general fund. i am wondering if our caller could speak to that issue. do they know the percentage of the gasoline tax? do they go into how much goes into the general fund versus the actual funding for the infrastructure, for which there were intended? guest: that is a great questn. i don't know thenswer on the top of my head. welcome back at some otherime to talk about that. those types of financing scheme. those are one of the ways we do financial structures along with bonds and taking funds out of general revenue. there is something like a gas tax that is designated towards

roads and transportation. this is something they should be on theable. host: silver spring. caller: my question would be, why would the focus be on so much in cuttg the federal government's and not revising the tax codes which have caused such problems in the past 30, 35 years to fix it seems like everybody talks about sitting down at the table. the first thing you do is you see how everything in your home is being legislated, and from there, afterwards, you fige out what you can do by cutting back the federal government. all the opportunities, all the

biggest things that have ever happened in this country have come from the research that the federal government has funded, not the private enterprise. the private enterprise has always profited from it by utilizing their technology and putting it out on the market after the federal government has invested an enormous amount of money host:. let's hear from our guest. guest: the internet was an investment made by the federal government and the science and technology set that up. you have your ipad and we'll have our pnes and our computers and that is one of those -- we have all been a federal budget we have all benefited from that investment. the connection between the deficit and taxes. i would like to touch on that. we have seen, especially over

the past decade, folks put a lot of talk about cutting the deficit. they did not actually addss -- the deficit is two decided. you have spending and revenue. you have to deal with both sides of the equation. cutting off your nose to spite your face, not investing in things that will grow our economy and create a strong middle class in the future at the expense of not talking about making sure the tax system is provided us with the resources that we need and that those kinds of taxes we have make sense and promote investment. that needs to be part of the conversation. ho: kan., charles. you're on a line for heather boushey. we're talking irastructure. caller: i hope you don't cut me

off. i'm ticked off at you guys. host: right off the bat? we're not doing that today. caller: start trying to figure out that two and two equals four. the solar and wind and all that crap -- they should not force me to pay for it and it should not be connected to the grid. we're going to have to rebuild and that will cost more money. raise the cost of my energy. i am a rancher. i have is your degree temperatures and the wind is growing. i have to feed my cows no matter of the temperature or conditions. we have technology to secure this energy problem. we get the energy we need and

will have to building power plants. we have to build 25 plants a year. guest: the focus on energy is one of the big things we're talking about. the issue is, how can we promote investments in the united states with the kind of energy that will reduce our dependence on --reign oil proj host: oil prices are surging. guest: there are questions about who we are buying our oil from. we need to make sure that we are creating a path on energy that will address these issues around climate chge. you are a rancher. this issue is affecting a.

we need to make sure our energy policy recognizes that and pushes the ball forward. the administration has put all ideas on the table. we need to reduce our reliance on the kind of energy that exacerbates climate change. they put nuclear on e table. the goals they set out in the state of the union of increasing the amount ofnergy we're getting from alternative energy, that is the kind of goal will need to be thinking of. host: who delight out there, if anyone on this issue? -- who do you liked? guest: we need to make sure we get everyone on board. i don't have a clear sense that we're reaching across the aisle. i think those efforts are in play and we need to make sure

that everyone understands not just the urgency in terms of today's oil prices that are long term energy -- our long term energy is critical. host: good morning. caller: sometimes it is silly. i was going to talk about two things that happened here in texas. they were going to build a super collider thing. spent god knows how many money wound up with a big hole in the ground. because of government regulation, and because of the little green peas people and the little -- we need to save the planet people,ost overruns -- the little green peace people -- we have all the refineries on the coast and they won't let

them build new ones. and the refiners are getting old and they are maintaining them at a lower and lower degree. if you want to spend money, build new refineries, build power plants without all the regulations were -- nobody can afford it. quit spending money and stupid things. i mean, you all need to get in the real world. host: beth from texas. guest: "stop spending money on stupid things." motto.ould be aiour we need to make sure we're building things that are safe, things that will not cause massive environmental damage. these must be priorities. we saw how devastating this can be from the bp oil spill went

there are not sufficient rules in place and when they are not in force. i would take issue with that part of your comment. i do think we to make sure the kind of investments we are making our sport and that they are following -- they are consistent with the overall goals and agenda. that is what the president is trying tlay out here. let's lay out a set of goals and what kind of investments you make will flow from that so you're not making investments that areot part of a coherent plan. host: we have one headlines from ""the wall street journal." . . guest: let me take the last part

first. in terms of what indoable. certainly we know that things have changed. but everyone understands that we still face a crop -- a jobs crisis. we saw that from the state of the union. everyone understands we have a long way to go to get this recovery taking hold for regular americans, including jobs and all that. a big piece of the crisis in terms of the budget at the state level, high unemployment and falling tax revenues. i think that does create opportunities for both sides to work together. we need to make sure that we create jobs. people do not see their wages go up and they get angry with whoever is in power. there will be incentives to do that. things about the

kinds of investments we're talking about here today, i do not think it is the best interest to compare the federal budget to a household budget because there are different rules that apply. one thing that is similar is part of what is going on today is like a parent looking at their 18 year-old kid who was graduated from high school and sang because we have a mortgage and things did not go well, we will not let you take out a loan to go to college. we need to make sure we're making investments in the future, just like families are making investments in their kids because they know the investments will pay off, i think there has to be ways to work across i'll on these issues. -- acrosss the aisle on ths these issues. host: the treat on the line here yen -- detroit on the line.

caller: what are the infrastructure spending will come from the vernment and the private sector? if you look in the urban areas where unemployment is 15%, maybe 20% and even some cases 30%, because you have people that go out to try to look for jobs, but if you look at history, you'll see in building the great highways and all of that, you will find -- when the roads were good, spin-off jobs came and it really brought this country to where we are today. host: republican from ohio on the line. caller: excuse me, i have a cold. i was wondering if your guest is

actually serus. investments? bull. you can smile all you want, lady. i live in northwest ohio, the epa just came down here in iled us. we know how to go through and spend over $130 million on a new water system. there are only 17,000 people in this city, which means you will have people that are on fixed incomes paying water bills of $300 per month. host: a couple of widely- different comments there. guest: that comment explains exactly why these are not issues that are easily dealt with at the community level. we are thinking about what the nation needs to do to update our infrastructure. i am going to guess the reason that the epa came down and said you need to spend money to improve your water is because there's something wrong with

it, and are mentally or something that is harmful to humans. -- and are mentalenvironmentallg that is harmful to humans. we have not made that a priority. we have not made the investments because we of said we cannot afford it. we also cannot afford to have water that makes people sick. the question is how we will pay for it. the answer is we need to do something, and it cannotust fall on those who can afford it. host: what wasour take on the stimulusill, the so-called shovel ready projects that were tied to infrastructure? where are those jobs? what happened? what is your take on stimulus? guest: the majority of the money did not go for infrastructure. let's be clear on that. i think it would of been great if more would have done that.

there was a significant chunk of change that was spent on infrastructure, and we have en that money be spent out faster than people thought it would be. we have created jobs. as i was traveling around the country over the holidays in the past few months, everywhere i go you see people saying we' doing this because of the money. i see it all the time. those dlars have been spent. you see them making investments in roads and transportation and all the things that communities wanted. the american society of civil engineers are getting -- had a long laundry list of all of the quick and easy repairs that we needed to make. a lot of the communities because they have had the money over the past few decades to make those investments had a list. we have seen those projects be the first to go. a lot of the money was

incredibly well spent. host: wilmington, ohio. good morning to you. caller: i just would like to talk about the state of ohio. we were doing really good, but this governor has taken away 400,000 jobs for the fast rail system and given it away. he a stake in the state taxes for the rich -- he has taken awa y state taxes for the rich. he also does not want any accountability or transparency. he is countistarted a jobs progn ohio, which we would love to trust this issue, but it is clear in recent history that makes us skeptical. we trusted bob taft and his

cronies and it left ohio imprisoned. there is a lot of fraud back then, and we need transparency. he wants to put the schools and merge them together. he does not want to hire any minorities. probably taxes will go up. he will get rid of medicaid he says. st: lot of comments from ohio. let's hear from joe from virginia. caller: good morning. i would say i think the center for american progress is probably part of the problem, not the solution. i worked in the energy industry for 42 years, and i have seen government subsidized and government spending on energy of just about every form you can imagine. i would say that well into the

90% of those government programs have been a failure. wht we need to do is take the energy infrastructure, get the government out of the business of subsidizing energy programs, regulating energy programs. host: heather boushey? guest: i will take both the comments, but let me take rhonda's first. we have to make a decision in this country about what we want our fute to look like and how we're going to pay for it. what we have seen is decades of rising inequality in the united states. we have more inequality in this country than in the country's rising price it's going on in the middle east today. we have seen alongside that rising inequality and the hollowing out of america's

middle class, a tax structure that is giving back so much money to the very wealthiest among us. in december the conservatives, republicans push to extend the tax cuts to the wethiest among us, those making $250,000 per year or more. those tax cuts are part of the reason we cannot afford to make the basic investments in things that benefit the common good. we need to own that decision and understand that is the choice and this is not some -- it was not spurned on us, it was a decision we made. it sounds like joe has a lot more experience in energy than i do. i am an economist. but i would note that there is a lot of talk in this town about regulation as though it were some sort of bnket thing. the government should not step in and tell people what to do beuse we cannot have regation and the private

sector should be able to do exactly what they want. we have seen what that does to people and to our economy when you do not dig into that black box of regulation. just a few examples, the bp oil spill. that has had severe economic consequences and environmental consequences. there is a clear role for the government to be making sure that there are sensible rules that will keep people safe and keep our environment safe. if we're going to have a conversation about that, let's have a conversation about all of those things. host: democrat from pennsylvania. caller: i am afraid this is going to sound negative like a lot of the other people, but obama is really trying to do things, but every president from reagan on have run the deficit

up so high that all of the things like we have like school in wateand water and railroads,e government itself has gotten so rd that a lot of republicans are intelligent and willing to work, but a lot of them are just completely negative. host: final thoughts from your guest. guest: i liked the fact that he pointed out this is a decade- long problem in the making. the problem is not new, and it is because we have not made the investmen host: heather boushey, thank you for joining us.

>> there will be a debate live here on c-span this evening. it is at george washington university. we will have the debate live on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. hosni mubarak has said he will not run for reelection. you can see his statement from today after our live coverage at george washington university at about 8:30 eastern. right now at c-span.org, erartesy of the al jazede network. this is an event hosted by the american constitution society. this discussion of judicial nominees and the confirmation process is an hour and a half.

>> we promote the vitality of our constitution and its fundamental values. individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy, and the rule of law. acs has worked to draw attention to the judicial crisis. cement -- the senate only confirm 62 of barack obama's to additional nominees in the past two years, compared to 104 george bush, and 128 for bill clinton during the first two years of their presidency. we have 875 federal judgeships, and we now have 101 vacancies. that is an extraordinarily high number. 49 of those vacancies are

described as judicial emergencies. most recently, the tragic death of judge john roll brought attention to this crisis. he was at the safeway in tucson to talk with gabby giffords about this very issue. about judicial vacancies in arizona. and his death has resulted in arizona now being added to the list of judicial emergencies. this vacancy crisis is obviously not a part -- a partisan issue. it is an issue about the integrity of our court and the administration of justice for the american people. on the heels of justice anthony kennedy calling attention to this problem, a group of nine circuit judges led by chief judge alex kosinski, a reagan appointee, wrote to senators

reid and mcconnell, asking them to fill the vacancies. so what can be done about this? today we are extremely lucky to be able to hear from someone who is so well suited to answer that question. white house counsel paul bauer will share his view on the nomination process and what he sees as the likely development in the coming years. bob was named white house counsel in november 2009. it was formerly a partner of the law firm and chair of its political law group. he was president obama's personal attorney. he also served as general counsel to the dnc, as co- counsel to the -- and was general counsel to bill bradley for president.

he was also counsel to the democratic leader in the trial of william jefferson clinton. bob has graciously agreed to take a few minutes of questions at the conclusion of his remarks and we will then hear from an extremely distinguished panel. now what is my pleasure to turn this over to bob bauer. thank you, bob. [applause] >> thank you for your invitation to speak on this. i have been free to make of this topic what i would. my hostess been kind enough to not suggest any particular approach to the topic. i would like to lay out what i hope we can accomplish this year in cooperation with the senate

against the history of the last two years' history of experience with the senate. i will not rehearsed the familiar litany of complaints about the process. there is plentiful commentary on the subject. some of which is learned and useful, and some part of which is a myriad of accusations about who is behaving badly. one of my favorite, who behaved badly first, to lessen the culpability of the person who behaved badly second. here are the essential facts, and those of you who like to participate, you can look it up. the confirmation rate is terribly low. one result is the large number of seats dedicated as judicial emergencies, more than one half of the nominees now present in

the senate our judicial emergencies. the state of emergency being that which by the standards of judicial conference is courts were the cases are filed exceeding the capacity to hear them. the vacancy rate overall has hovered around the historic 12%. this is twice the structural rate, twice the 5% rate that we might expect in the normal course of retirements and death. yet we have nominees that have waited for historic long periods of time for a vote. now total of 49 nominees before the senate, nominated in the last congress and now renominated for nominated for the first time just last week. the chief justice of the united states pointed out of minute ago correctly stated that the underlying problem has persisted for many years, and that the move to address it has become in his words "urgent." this is the second to take up

the call against the breakdown in the nominations and confirmation process. chief justice rehnquist did the same some years before. for him, he stated that the consequence was a growing, unattended to do so work load and the threat it presented of an erosion in the quality of justice. over time, these have been registered by our range of forces and commissions like the miller commission in 1996, which opened its report by stating, " the federal judicial system continues to be plagued by troubling accretion of unfilled vacancies and delays in the appointment process and backlog of the pending appointment." the effectiveness of -- the state of judicial emergency is predictable and pernicious. a massive backlog of cases causing increases delays for americans seeking their day in court around the country. trials are delayed for months, some courts lacking the

necessary capacity to outsource portions of their caseloads to other courts. an individual judge's on courts with numerous vacancies have had to take on hundreds and sometimes more than 1000 additional filings. what is the striking and disturbing about the state of affairs is what i will call the general absence in the political sphere of the same sense of urgency expressed by the chief justices. there are exceptions, to be sure. chairman leahy has spoken forcefully and eloquently to this problem, and his concerns are certainly actively shared by the democratic leadership. but i have noticed in recent months in the course of my conversations with members that this concern is spreading and it is by no means limited to one side of the aisle. republicans as well as democrats increasingly 8 knowledge, some privately, some publicly, that we're witnessing something profoundly troubling. it is true that many have

pointed out that there are institutional and structural explanations for the woefully inadequate pace of confirmations. for example, the senate rules for all practical purposes permit a single senator to freeze the process for particular nominee. we're all familiar with the lament about the procedural tools that are available to accomplish delay or the means by which to lay becomes the functional equivalent of fatal opposition. these are all important points in the discussion of the purported the confirmation process. but there are significant largely as expressions of the problem, not as primary source. the problem is i see it is that more -- it is more subtle and more profound. it is the very climate now often felt in the confirmation process, many years in the making in which it is widely accepted that this is the way things go and that the cost cited by the chiefs, heavy costs, some are -- are somehow

they're full. -- are somehow unbearable. proponents planning that large consequences will come from confirming or rejecting potential nominees. this type of conflict is far from the subdued setting for the confirmation struggles of today. it is a war, a term i do not care for, is a cold war and not a hot war. there are two examples of how whitmanic fest itself. first, nominees' left to languish on the floor for as much as hundreds of days without a but are basically ignored, not push to one side because of perceived deficiencies in their records or shortcomings as potential terrorists. it is a quite a blow to the process, but a heavy blow, nonetheless. no shopping on the floor, just nothing on the floor. it is sf, and it is apparently to some, as if it did not matter

at all. but of course, it matters a great deal to the nominees, to the courts to which they were nominated to serve, and to the parties before those courts. chief justice rehnquist quite rightly pointed to the loss of quality of justice when we do not have enough judges for the cases to be decided. and it is all loss in the quality of justice when this very proposition, up proposition that we urgently need judges to have an effective and responsive judiciary, to an intermittent audits. that is one problem. let me cite another. in our selection of potential nominees, and in consultation with senators and in some cases representatives, we have been forced to give up on qualified candidates because opposition has been a concern about quality or qualifications. but in my experience, these concerns however strongly

expressed are all too often hard to really pin down. sometimes it is a question of personal preference. the president has selected a candidate for nomination. and a particular member would have chosen differently. the stalls progress on filling the vacancy. if it stalls, well, it's false because it seems somehow that delayed does not matter as it should. this is a new world. a confirmation process once characterized by hard-fought battles waged on specific nominees is now disabled by steady resistance to moving nominees as a class of across the board. this can happen and it will only continue if the effects are seen somehow not to matter very much or not to matter enough. and yes, each party can only accuse the other of partisanship, of cutting back that successful number of

nominations even when there is no way to focus on ideology. but if this is acceptable, even in the absence of major disagreements about confidence or etiology, it is ok to keep the short -- a " short of justices, then this only goes to show how the costs have become parable and how the loss in the quality of justice somehow has come to seem not to matter. one question raised from time to time is whether this administration can do more to elevate the issue. to call more attention to this grave problem from varying directions and in varying ways. be sure that we have made and we will continue to make this case as the president did forcefully in his letter to congress last october. there he highlighted what he called the dramatic shift in the confirmation process, which could produce a crisis in the judiciary. he wrote, "if there is a genuine

concern about the qualifications of about judicial nominees, this is a debate i welcome. but that consistent refusal to move promptly, to have that debate or to confirm those nominees with broad bipartisan support, does a disservice to the senate and the american people it serves." in this new congress, we will continue to make this case for treating the confirmation of judges as the urgent priority it is, we will make this case through the end of the session and into the next. our goal is to do so in a way that defines the issue and seeks to raise the sense of urgency and calls on the good faith and shared commitment to our system of justice that can be found among democrats and republicans alike. for our part in the administration, we continue to devote our energies to removing obstacles and excuses for delay. we have obviously appreciated

the process by which nominations are made, presenting challenges. as a citation to the miller said the report reflects, this is nothing new. there are delays in the nominating process, but we're not tranquil about it. identification of the candidates, consultation with the congress, coordination with the american bar association, if in the ever exacting vetting process consumes more time than they should. we have made justice and we will make more. but the number of nominations in the last -- 71 in 2010, increasing 70% over the 2000 number for a total of 112 overall. and as i notice, some 49 and now before the senate. the judiciary committee hearing scheduled for all intents and purposes is booked for this purpose until the spring. it is not for want of nominations that we do not have confirmations. i appreciate that there are

occasions where their major differences over the jurors provincial outlook of one nominee or other bringing to his or her post. perry often the differences are absurdly overstated. each side of the debate would do well to take a more measured stance in these discussions. i understand that my wishes are unlikely to be granted, but i learned that this job that one hangs tightly to whatever slim thread of hope one can. but after full and fair deliberation, the president's nominees must receive a vote. this principle goes to the heart of the advice and consent process, to the americans -- to the president's constitutional authority to nominate. so stepping back from controversy is chewing the -- eschewing it the habitual finger-pointing, it should find common ground and find a constitutional process that moves from nomination to debate

to a vote. in this respect, returning to the theme that we should treat nominations and confirmations as if the matter, one way certainly is to respect constitutional form. the case in which a vote should be denied should be rare. truly exceptional in character. there should be some discussion on what such a case might be. some senators may fear that committing to an eventual vote will give the game away, removing any serious incentive to the concerns and consultations about particular nominees. fair enough. that is essentially a question about good faith. but this administration is committed and i believe it has shown that it will consult with the senate in good faith. we have endeavored to do this. we have agreed to review a second time and occasionally a third time the issues raised about a particular nominee.

but in the end the objection is simply that a senator or senators would prefer a different nominee, or would insist on one to decide cases on a different reading a lot, then the objection should be put to a vote. against this background, this is what the administration hopes to accomplish. we will work with democrats and republicans alike to reexamine seriously where we stand on individual nominations and on the process generally. this has to be a bipartisan process and i am convinced in conversations with republicans as well as democrats that there is a growing recognition if that however we got to this. over however many years, we cannot in good conscience remain here. a group including nominees from republican and democratic administrations of the past, they come in bipartisan groups, confidentially, to express these

concerns that the path at which we have arrived is simply not sustainable. so the principles on which i hope we could reach agreement are as follows. judicial nominations are an undertaking in public administration, the administration of justice. this is a first principle to which we must always repair. the current slow crawl cannot be reconciled with acceptable standards for maintaining our system of justice in good order. the administration will continue to consult closely with senators in full recognition of their legitimate interests and concerns and prerogatives, while expecting that differences about particular nominations can be explored on a common understanding about what constitutes a legitimate, reasonable ground of different. and last, this will affect a small number of nominations, but those differences will remain

and the nominees should have a vote in a way. none of these should be on the effect -- the reach of good faith implementation. at that time at when the american public is asking with intensity that the parties work together to solve problems, this problem, it should not be left out of the bipartisan were to be done. to refuse or neglect this work would be to affirm again that somehow in some way it does not matter. and certainly there should be agreement, and i think there is agreement, that they cannot be true. a process so vital to the administration of justice does matter very much. as the president stated last year, "the real harm on the american people who turn to the courts for justice. all americans depend on having well qualified men and women on the bench to resolve important legal matters, from working

mothers who seek timely compensation for discrimination claims, to communities hoping for swift punishment for perpetrators of crimes, to small businesses seeking protection from unfair and anti-competitive practices." and we can honestly multiplied many times over the list, the kinds of cases americans are trying to bring to their courts that because of the state of affairs cannot be heard in a timely fashion. in 2011, the task is urgently to have a performance of the judicial problem rise to the level of its importance. with that, i will take your questions. yes. >> in texas, no u.s. attorney positions have been nominated.

could you discussed briefly that timeline for nominations in these positions and what the state of the u.s. attorney t nominations are across the country or to mark >> honestly the subject of judicial nominees is a subset of a larger discussion about nominations. the speed at which the nominations are made and eventually they are confirmed. there is no question that we have experienced across the country in particular cases some real difficulty in moving nominations. some of the problems, i think, that have been at work in these difficulties i have alluded to in these comments. there is a robust process -- congressional interest in law enforcement and not -- and the nominees to law enforcement positions is very inherent. there are often sharp disagreements the breakout about precisely how the opposition should be filled, the qualifications of each individual candidate to fill them.

that is even after it the point at which we find a willing candidate who will submit to and ultimately emerge from the process by which we reviewed those candidates. let me assure you, the effort that i am suggesting, that we are making and will continue to make, to move judicial nominations will translate also and carry over into nominations in other positions including the positions that you cited. so that i move to be more specific, i won't mention the specific nominates but an aspect of the process -- we will do what it can -- what it takes to break through gridlock on some of these nominations. to give you an idea, we had gone multiple times now to the congress, sometimes just to the senate and to hold delegations that have a stake in the matter, to revisit in person issues that have been raised about potential nominees. it might be a conflict about to

bite the nominated or particular nomination, but what i want to stress is that we're in constant contact on these issues. sometimes they proved very difficult to address. that is not true across the country. it is true in some cases because of some particular condition, some particular circumstances. but we spend a great deal of time trying to work through that. i want to recognize my deputy for nominations here who would attest that we devote a great deal of time not just on the phone but in person in a variety of ways to work through these issues to our resolution. in a large number of cases, one of the cases that you cite, we have not been successful but we will continue to work added. -- at it. [inaudible] >> i am with congressional

quarterly. does the renomination of 10 -- a controversial nominees liked jack lew, does that reflect on their ability to get to the senate this go around. and any reaction on yesterday's ruling on the health care law. >> very cheeky. nice stalking horse question and right behind it comes health care. [laughter] the president does not nominate more -- any individual the administration does not expect a full support and bring to a vote. that's chilling case of the individual in which you cite, and in case of all the other free-nominated judicial prospects from last year. we're fully committed to the mall. we will work the process very

hard and we will speak to individual members were there are concerns and we will move, as i suggested earlier, very hard to secure the earliest possible but with every expectation that we can successfully place all of these individuals on the court. what was your second question? [laughter] what was your question? my reaction to the health care vote? i would have decided differently. [laughter] this is one district court decision. there have been a number of decisions. we of one so far, the administration position has been sustained in the number. it -- in this case it has not been sustained. this is part of our process and eventually we will have a resolution of these issues. i do not think that yesterday's development, other than adding another voice to the, if you will, opposition to the bill, the constitutional objections to the bill, stop the resolution

for being successful. yes. >> the problems that you have talked about about nominations in general or is there something particularly dysfunctional about judicial and law enforcement nominations? if that is the latter, is there a reason why? >> there are obviously different categories of nominations better. attract different levels of interest, in which congress will have different proceed equities. judicial nominations by virtue of the lifetime tenure feature and the importance of the case law that moves through those courts, it is going to raise the stakes considerably. there have been issues in the executive nomination process as well. i definitely think that by virtue of the lifetime tenure of

these federal judges, and the significance of the caseload they decide, there is a high level -- legitimately high level of congressional concerns. now what we need to do is to have that process work more functionally and appropriately as consistent with the constitutional and original expectations. we should return more to constitutional form here and at a minimum expecting there will be disagreements have a full and fair deliberation and eventually a vote. if your question is, is there something about the judicial nominations instead of nomination generally, those of the features that i would identified. yes. >> has there been a discussion with senator to leahy -- senator leahy or tomorrow >> >> >> i cannot disclose discussions

i've had with the head the judiciary committee. we look beyond those battles and address the process as we find it. we look for ways to work through a successful resolution. that is the course that we are on. i believe it completely feasible -- i am hearing from republican members as democratic, no less of a concern about how this works. some of them, for all the disagreement you can expect on these issues, some of them have expressed to me and in fairly direct terms that they believe that the system is breaking down. they have offered to help. i take what they have offered at face value. i believe based on my prior working experience with them is that they mean what they offer six series -- sincerely. there is a way to bring these confirmations to a successful, from a -- conclusion. not the nominations already in the pipeline, but the

nominations still to come. >> [inaudible] >> you mentioned the problem with access to the courts. at what point does it become a constitutional issue, perhaps allowing the military force to open or some other thing about assets? [laughter] >> i thought i put it forward very dramatically in my remarks. [laughter] i do not think that we're close to that point. i have not contemplated that as a rimini project as a remedy -- i have not contemplated that as a remedy. yes. >> how useful to you consider the weapon of recess

appointments? >> i don't know that i've whatever have to find it in terms of utility. sometimes you define it in terms of necessity, where position is not filled in and does not appear there is any potential ground for agreement, there is important work in the government and is to be done. as you can imagine, recess appointments are quite inadequate response to the problem of judicial nominations. you are seeking to actually confirm in the normal course. so you conserve for as long as here see as able. -- he or she is able. i see it as necessity, but there are other places where it is absolutely indispensable, for the work of government cannot be done. the question of judicial nomination is the question of public could fenestration. unfortunately in recent years,

it is become -- public administration. it is become a subset of politics generally. there is obviously a political dimension to these debates, but it is still public administration is you. not everyone of these nominations is one on which the greatest issues of our day turn. there are americans every day you have to bring their cases to court and have them resolved. there is ongoing developed in the law. confident jurists have to look in the correct direction. we have to view this as something as we address as what is required for sound government. the same thing being true with executive nominations, which sometimes becomes necessary to make recess appointments if the physician goes unfilled and the business of government is not being done. yes.

>> i read most recently about the senate not giving bush the various unsavory proposals were being voted out of the house of representatives, which raises the possibility of some horsetrading in terms of -- we will let you vote on this if you let us have a vote on the nominees. i would like your comment on that from a practical political standpoint and from the principles standpoint. >> could you restate the question -- i want to make sure i understood it. >> apparently senator reid is not going to allow votes on the number of things that the house of representatives is passing out, trying not to mention a particular subject like healthcare. [laughter] there is a prospect, obviously, of trading, of course trading. we will let you have a vote on health care if you give us votes on x number of judicial

nominees. and i welcome to your reaction to both the political question and also as a principal question in terms of dealing with judicial nominations. >> i am probably going to disappoint you by staying within my own sphere of responsibility in confidence. i would not address the ways that senate businesses move. they have judgments about which measures in which votes and what combination will be scheduled or taken. that is a complicated process that i think it's probably best i do not comment on. at the end of the day, my view is and i do not mean this is a vindication of and ends justifies the means analysis, but we have to simply arrive at an understanding, not that we

tend to the surface -- but as an affirmative matter of caring for our judicial system, we have to have those votes. we have to have those confirmations. those funds may develop in other ways and i welcome the votes when they occur. but the larger point i want to make is that this is a matter of urgency right now, because it goes to the heart of whether we have a functioning system of justice that we can offer the public of this country. yes. >> i want to be that guy. what is the administration's next up with guantanamo, given the actions that congress has taken? yet given up yet happening within the next two-year period? >> what i will do so that i can

declined to answer to questions in a row and set a record, it is allowed carolina to appear at an event scheduled for that purpose. it is a very high complicated question. it would require several minutes of explanation and some back room. it is probably more within the time that we can do. thank you very much. [applause] >> that is extremely stimulating, interesting, and i'm very interested to see what our panelists have to say in response. we are fortunate after bob's talk, to have three exceptionally well qualified panelists to react to what bob

had to say. and to give their insights into how president obama has. thus far with judicial nominations, and what the road ahead looks like. one is currently a shareholder in a law firm. she was appointed deputy assistant attorney general in the antitrust division by george w. bush in july 2003. he was the staff director and chief counsel in the senate judiciary committee working as the principal legal and policy adviser for then-chairman orrin hatch. carolyn lamb is a lot partner. she was president of the aba from 2009-2010, as well as the past president of the d.c. bar. if she was named one of the 50 most influential women in america by the national law journal and one of washington's

top 30 lawyers by washingtonian magazine. will marshall is a distinguished professor of law at the university of north carolina school of law. bill was deputy white house counsel and deputy assistant to the president during the clinton administration and served as a list of general of the state of ohio. bill has published extensively on the first amendment, federal courts, and presidential powers, and is a leading expert on judicial experts. and of great importance to the american constitutional society community, with his great expertise, camaraderie, and guidance, he is a member of our board. we will hear first wemeghe -- we will hear first from mehgen, and carolyn, then bill, and then we will talk about the save our

judiciary. >> let me thank you for by inviting me to be here. this is one of the more important topics. a lot of us have been watching what has been unfolding in the middle east and in egypt and this morning in jordan, it reminds me when i left for iran, and exactly what was going on back then. not really appreciating get back then, i really think that in my experience, having had the opportunity and the honor to work with in all three branches of government, i think that what we have in america, as far as the judicial branch, an independent judicial branch, is in my view probably the most significant element of a true functioning democracy. people can take their grievances to the courts and be comfortable that they will most likely --

regardless of what the outcome is, happy or unhappy at the time -- we respect that, whether that is on an issue of health care, of intellectual property, whether it is an issue on the election of united states president, we do not go to the streets and right. we will hold peaceful demonstrations. but generally we respect 5-4 supreme court decisions on racial issues and that is probably the most common influence in a democracy. -- calming influence in the bop receive. i was glad to hear bob's comments about not really rehashing past statistics. i think both sides can get into a statistical jujitsu if they wanted to. who has left more vacancies,

etc. the thing i wanted to stress is that bob said there is a pattern, and alarming, profound change that we are witnessing here. they are 99, i believe, these things change on a day-to-day business approximately 100 vacancies now. 49 nominations for those vacancies. more than half of those vacancies do not have a nomination associated with them. president obama s nomination -- 60 of them got confirmed last year. at the end of the year, where there were 99 at the end of the first to your congress, 99 vacancies, 58% of those that did not have a nomination associated

with them. i am glad that the white house is finally making nominations of priority, but they have other priorities to citrus their attention -- health care, financial services reform, energy, and other matters, as well as the financial crisis that this president has been dealing with. nominations, i do not think, those can save regardless of what side of the aisle you come from, has not been a priority for this administration until now. perhaps it will become one. i'll tell you one thing -- it is not a partisan issue, either the delay or the confirmation of president obama's nominations. i will mention a couple of facts. president obama's circuit court nominees, from the time they were nominated until the time they got here is, it took an average 64 days.

president bush, from the time they were nominated until they got judicial committee hearings, 247 days. 64, 247. district court nominees -- obama's waited 60 days to get a hearing. for president bush, they had to wait 120 days before they got a hearing. you know the senate rules and the process of the confirmation. there really is no impediment to the democratic majority to bring in nomination for a vote for for a hearing. s and is the white house nominates, there is no -- as soon as the white house nominates, there is no impediment for senator leahy to hold a hearing for that nomination, and no impediment for the senate majority leader. bob says that a single senator can freeze all nominations. he withholds is unanimous

consent. there is nothing to stop senator reid to go to the floor and bring up that nomination, to be considered, and debate, if there is a senator not willing to give their consent as is their constitutional prerogative, nothing for him to say, no, we're going to debate this, and move to it. or he wants to, if justice is done in other areas of legislation, and nomination is important to get 16 senators to sign -- hopefully you can have 16 senators who would support the nomination, to sign a cloture and move that nomination up for a vote. this is not in addition, given other priorities of the democratic party, but certainly republicans have been in no position to block either a hearing or actually taking it to a vote. i am glad that it is becoming a

priority and hopefully the consultation and how that process would go. one thing that bothers me, a couple of nominees for when the democrats are 59 senators, they had 60 when senator specter switched parties, they could not get those nominees up and it was important of to bring them up at the time, when they had 59 after senator brown one in massachusetts. they cannot find a single republican, presumably, to support one of those nominees to bring it up for a cloture and go for a vote. i think when you have only 53 democratic senators and a number of them coming from difficult read states, it will become a heckuva lot more difficult. why renominate, why not move forward and work with the senators and a bipartisan manner, and sen nominees that could get the support unless you were just looking for a fight with the mark that is going to be wasted time spent on those

couple of nominees that will not get 60 votes to bring them to a final vote that could be used on the other nominees that could find consensus to bring it. my view one filibustering nominees come i have taken a different position than some of my democratic colleagues, i think there should be a change for filibustering judicial nominees and changing the rules. but not for that to have been fairly done damage would have to have a number of leaders come together and say for the next president or for the next congress, whoever will be in charge of either the senate or the presidency, and that is where some leadership needs to come together to make that change. otherwise, within the current system, if there has been fewer nominations confirmed, then the white house -- it only has two

people to borrowing, the white house and the democratic majority in the senate. >> a lot to talk about. i'll turn it over to carolyn. >> it is a pleasure to be with you and talk to you today. i have some observations that i want to share about the real impact of these vacancies on the public and on the lawyers who have to appear in front of judges who are overworked and unable -- and it has profound implications, as mekan and i both agree on, on our system of justice with respect to the new process of the people to have their rights heard. it is simply something that we as americans and we as lawyers cannot tolerate.

i want to give you some for instances and i will talk about the why, with mekan gave a perspective on, and some recommendations on what we can do about it and urged both the senate and the white house to do their jobs and get our benches full to the place that they should be. first, let's look at -- when we're talking about judicial vacancies, it is not detached from reality. the judges in those districts where they are not fully staffed at staggering caseloads. they are strained beyond capacity to deal with those caseloads, and they are unable to keep up with them. what that translates into on a day-to-day world for lawyers who appear before them as

litigant's is that they have to delay a civil trial dockets. they take speedy trial cases first. that means that if a litigant is in there with a personal injury, but they constitutional dispute, they are not going to be heard until speedy trial act cases are dealt with. indeed, in arizona, after judge roll's murder, the district court declared a state of emergency and has in fact extended the limits under the speedy trial act so that the accused now has to have a hearing in 180 days for the next 12 months instead of the mandated -- the mandated 70 days. that is really reprehensible in our system. it cannot be tolerated. they have already in an extremely busy district with three vacancies and they are not

full. i am not one to be judgmental about to cause this and who should be getting them through. it is urgent that we move people through and get people on the bench. and we simply cannot say, well, they should have gotten people together and voted cloture and filibustered or whatever. we need to move it. senators have to do their job under the constitution, and senators are not doing their job under the constitution. the judges in these districts also adopted a tough efficiency measures. what this does is impact due process. it cuts back in the name of the efficiency because they do not have the time to devote to cases, it cuts back on how much time they are going to give to a litigant to present their case, how long the pleadings will be in front of them, and that

really alters the quality of justice. another thing that was in these overburdened districts, we find justice is resigning. they do not want to deal with justice in that way. we find judges retiring, and we also find excellent attorneys deterred from accepting the nomination. it shrinks the pool. we heard -- if we focus on why this is going on, we heard that with respect to the rate of nominations that the president has been slow. in the first part of the congress, of course, the pace was slow. but when we look at the record, i am not sure that the record demonstrates that that is a contributing factor.

the senate postponed voting on 22 nominees until the lame duck session. they never considered 19 pending nominations. these are people that are reported out of committee, the worst vote out of committee was 12-7, and that was only a few. most come out with unanimous approval. and then they sit in the senate without action. 13 of those 19 pending at the time of adjournment, in fact, came out of the committee with unanimous consent. there was no controversy. no one question their qualifications. and 13 of the 19 were on the list of 49 judicial emergency districts. that is truly an abdication of responsibility that cannot be tolerated. i do think the administration should be increasing the number

of pending nominations to increase the pressure, to be sure. and we should do whatever we can to encourage the administration to do it. but that said, they have to move out of committee on to the floor and get a vote. if you look at the rate of confirmation, the senate in fact has been using dilatory tactics. one senator does not pretend to slip and then there is no vote. it just sticks. we find the senate did in fact confirm 62 nominations, dozens of nominees never got to the floor for consideration that had been reported out of the committee without any dissent. 67% of the nominees presented to the senate were reported out of the committee without dissent. and yet were subjected to delays

on the floor. and then those that did get through generally got through with unanimous vote for -- for almost unanimous vote. there wasn't any great dissension about the qualifications of those nominations. to be sure, there is on maybe six nominees, but the remainder are getting through without any great dissension of who they are and why they should be going through. we do understand, as mr. bauer indicated, that there are now in fact some discussions going on to change the procedures. and we applaud that. it must be done. but it must be done yesterday. they really must come to terms in terms of filibuster, in terms of voting on the floor, and move the process.

to avert any crisis and to preserve the quality of our judiciary, the aba urges and we have urged in letters and resolutions, we of urged directly, that both the senate and this president must make a prompt filling of judicial vacancies a priority. the administration has to make a concerted effort between the time that a vacancy is announced and the time that a nomination is made. and the senate has to give every nominee an up or down vote within a reasonable time after the nomination is reported out of the senate judiciary committee. mekan manchin many that got a hearing right away. there has been a real time between reporting out of committee and getting a vote in the senate. that is the problem.

that is where we see a lot of the problems. it is not necessarily just getting a time in front of the committee. that is in terms of the prognosis for the future -- it is very encouraging that both sides of the aisle recognized now, and we heard from both sides, that the system is not functioning efficiently or effectively. and that they are both considering changes to the process. even though we have heard that filibuster may remain an option. but we applaud their efforts. we certainly applaud the chief justice coming out as strongly as he did in his year in report to focus the attention on the very serious issues and his imploring both benches to for four -- perform their constitutional duties. we regret that the senate judiciary committee on the first

batch of nominees they were to come out last thursday were delayed. so there still remains were to be done. -- work to be done. i think mekan is exactly right on the impact of on the people. not to be ignored is what goes on in the streets in cairo and tunisia. what distinguishes us is our judicial system. people's assurance that they in fact had a day in court and can have their grievances heard, and the fundamental right to justice is at the core of preserving our democracy, and the court to that is a competent judiciary, and we're not going to get there, and we're going have litigants' and all kinds of litigants, criminal and civil, tremendously

frustrated and not tolerating the kind of delay, and indeed denial, of justice as a result of a lack of these fully complemented bench. there can be no higher priority. this must be something that the public and the american legal profession insists be at the top of the agenda and that both the senators and the administration perform what are their constitutional duties. >> i find it interesting when bob bauer started off his comments to talk about the good old days on the bill clinton judicial nominees and the good old days under the george w. bush nominees. i as i recall, neither one of those were good old days. the situation is bad, it is getting worse, and unless we turn around, it will be worse

than it already has been. i think what we have seen is that every opposing group, whatever power -- whatever president is power, is ever escalating. we've gone to the point of complete absurdity were delays take place even with respect to judges, who when they get up for vote as was mentioned, will go through unanimously are pretty close. this is a new way of slowing things down. the new look bipartisan at the end of the day, because you finally make your vote. i will get back to the problem with that in a moment. i want to reemphasize the harm that this is causing. one the week to talk about as the hon to litigants. the second we talked about, and chief justice roberts has race, on to the american justice system, which is one of the panicle parts of our nation's democracy.

and the third is the harm to the nominees, which we have not talked about all that much. if you are a lawyer, and you have been appointed to become a judge, if you cannot take cases in the same way that you could before. your life is put on hold. what this is doing is discouraging good people from letting their names being interdicted nomination because you could come before the white house as they reach out to you and suggest you like to be in this job, and they could say, if you've got nothing and controversial in iraq. does this mean i am going to go through quickly? the answer is still no. the problem that they have agreed about except when they're not in power is that the system we have is discouraging good nominees to come forward, if they have anything controversial on the record. now you do not have to have anything uncontroversial in your record to map -- to have a major disincentive to come for. it is being used to stop even

noncontroversial nominees from going through. why is this happening? a party that has been mentioned. the democrats have not put as much emphasis in the early parts of the administration. point taken. why has it not occurred other than that? if only harry reid had put the names out there, that would have been confirmed like that. except of course, they were putting holds on everybody and threatening filibuster to everything, and the mekan says, what a beautiful world, you get rid of the filibuster. you get a unanimous vote. except that takes time. to take five days for every nominee going to the district court is going to slow the process tdown. senator mcconnell has been hurt -- taken great pride on his two- year strategy on delaying

everything, so that the white house could not get traction on anything. he has paid no political price for that in judicial nominees. in fact, he is frequently benefiting. but this is just part of that strategy of slowing everything down, making everything a hard left, so that the administration cannot get anything accomplished. and i understand the tactics. and certainly if u.s. most republican senate, they would say they were very effective. the problem however, besides discouraging good and qualified people from coming forward, is that there is very little capital being expended in opposing judicial nomination, particularly when you do so quietly and the only threat is you will have a filibuster may be and at the end of the day you vote and say, well, i was bipartisan. there is no political capital

expended by those in opposition during this period, because people do not think about judges and the nomination of judge is as important as they should, probably, since that was talked about earlier. this was a low expenditure of capital. the problem that we need to focus on here is that we're not talking about the democratic administration's capital. we're talking about the capital of the american justice system. that is the capital that is being squandered by this kind of mindless opposition to delay just for the sake of delaying. i have to end on mekan's final point, if only president obama withdrew the six nominees with controversy, we could go forward nice and easily. what i think that means is that we should -- the democratic

administration should only nominate judges it will get unanimous consent so that any republican opposes, or three republicans opposed, then we should pull back in the democratic administration should pull back their nomination. how would be interesting to see that tactic taken by the next republican practice -- president. it was certainly not the tactic taken by the last republican president who put up some of the most ideologically driven nominees in our nation's history. the real problem is i can see it is that president obama has not put up enough nominees who would be controversial in any sense. when i use the term controversial, i do not mean outside the mainstream. a criticism from jim demint is not outside the mainstream. [laughter] that has to be remembered as well.

even if we want to put aside this constant debate we have about who is outside the mainstream and who is not, let's go back to the holding up on the non-controversial nominees for a moment and think about what a game and passat is simply to the detriment of the american political system. and yes, mekan, i will blame harry reid in part for not being aggressive enough on this, although he had other priorities. president obama could have been more -- made this a greater priority. clearly he had a major recession and facing a major recession on his mind. i think i am. put senator mcconnell at the top of my list. >> this is gone and spicy. which is what we wanted. i answer mekan will want to respond.

i have to confess, mekan and i were both in the senate during the battles under george bush, and i work for tom passable for that. we had other battles when bill was in the white house counsel's office. we have all been part of this general give-and-take, to put it nicely, for quite some period of time. i take seriously what bob said about not rehashing the litany of complaints. we could go through our own versions of this. and again, i do not want to the nine mekan this opportunity deny -- deny mekan this opportunity to respond. but in your conversation with each other, we abolished knowledge that the system is broken. we have all acknowledged that whoever is to blame, i don't

think the washington post called it at the beginning of the bush administration to politics of tit-for-tat. we have had that for quite some period of time and we acknowledge there is significant problems now. the highest judicial vacancy rate, the impact on the american public, so what should we do? how do we actually lift this logjam? are there solutions? i give that to anyone to respond to. >> there has to be. we have to work for other. when i left the white house counsel's office, i felt that some of the slots that were still open or open unfairly, there should of been confirmation on various peoples, one being elena kagan. but there were republican nominees up for nomination. i think there has to be some bi- partisan work.

and there is been a number of strong supporters in republicans, and people have to try to make this more of a bipartisan process than it is. and did not carry grudges of the previous administration back -- forward to the next one. but also, it even if we stayed at the level of grudge that existed at the end of the bush administration, we've taken it to a new level. we have taken it to a new level that is pulverizing when you start making this kind of delays with respect to people who ultimately turned out to be non- controversial. >> carolyn. >> i do think that there has to be a price to be paid for doing this. whether it is the republicans who are holding it up for the democrats for not pushing it through, whatever it is, i

think there has to be some accountability because it's such a fundamental and serious issue. in part, i think the press needs to get the word out to the states and to the districts that this is what is going on. i think most people do not understand. they do not know the impact that it has. they do not know what kind of brinksmanship is going on in washington impacting their daily lives. i also think the state bars who have some resonance with the senators, whether republican or democrats, because they are all opinion leaders, need to speak out strongly and forcefully in those districts where we find that in fact we are not getting people through and on the bench. that is part of the price to be paid to let the senators know that indeed the lawyers are watching in the public is watching. >> mekan.

>> this is as fascinating. but in the local press or the states bars --before a nominee is brought, highlight to have a real debate about this. look, it would take literally 30 hours with dual track legislation. let it wait that is something you're saying with nominees and legislation. reid assume that senator holds on to something like health care reform and he is saying, i have this bill which i am not bringing up to the senate for a debate or voting, but i ask unanimous consent that it be passed. if any senator opposes it and does now give unanimous consent, you're saying they should be added.

no, these are the senate rules. they have been the rules and unless the rules are changed, we have to respect that. the fact that a senator is not giving unanimous consent does not mean that there -- that they are doing something nefarious or obstructing, because you need a vote. of the 19 nominees that did not get a vote at the end of the year, 15 of those 19 were reported at the judiciary committee in december. 19 that confirmed in a lame duck. you have to go back to 2002 to actually find lame duck confirmation. senator mcconnell should be commended for even allowing that to move forward, for they were unanimous and allow them to go forward. those nominees, there is legitimate debate and this is

actually a healthy debate in our democracy. these are lifetime appointments. is it judges that affect everyone of our lives. he saw yesterday with health care, maybe half the country or 40% of the country really supports is. there is 50% of the country strongly opposing it. our constitutional right was decided by these judges. very important position. his views on constitution, his views that are all of the record are very legitimate issues for debate. it is not a single senator under republican side who has been convinced by this white house, when his wife has had 59 democratic senators, then there is something wrong about that nominee. or bring it up and debated. let's see what that is. that is a healthy debate about that person's view of the constitution. i appreciate what bill is

saying, and they go there unanimous consent. that is not what i'm saying. also what you mentioned is that all the nominees they can get for unanimously should be nominated, know. they should have at least 60 votes under the current rules. not 100. if you have 59 democratic senators, fined one republican. not a consensus between some of those senators who voted for health care for some of the stimulus are some of those. you can find at least one senator. if you cannot on that particular nominee, then there is an issue, or at least debated. if you willing strongly in it. we wanted to do that with a nominee like a miguel estrada. this current president, when he was a senator, voted against nominees flew through, even

bringing up cloture. was he part of this? he gave some strong speeches why he is voting to not allow cloture into debate on some of the nominees. the other thing to mention, what this president had during that time, two supreme court nominees confirmed. they take a lot of the resources of the judiciary committee. i didn't think that either senator reid or the judiciary committee should be blamed. they got through two. it's possible there is another vacancy this summer that the president will fulfill. these are important considerations, given the overall numbers of how many get confirmed or how many do not. but because the senator does not give unanimous consent does not mean that they are delaying a particular nominee. >> i could follow. mekan's -- if i could follow up

on mekan's statement, it does seem that --conflating nominees -- and if you look under the bush administration, and i promised i was not going to bring up a litany of complaints, but the district court nomination process, a fairly quickly, they were not required to have 60 votes. they were not even required to have a good. i do not know if that is something that bill karlyn, it strikes you is different. is there some different qualification of process we should have in circuit courts or district courts? >> the constitution does not distinguish. no one that tends to deny senators the right to oppose. that is their prerogative under the constitution. what we suggest is it must be

done in a very limited term. a five-day limit would be great. any kind of a limit. you either oppose and get them out to a vote, or not. in a certain amount of time. >> we are -- we had a fairly short period of time left. however like to ask one more question of the panel and then open it up to questions. all brought up something i thought was interesting. i was wondering if you could comment on it. he had a list of principles that he laid out in terms of recognizing that the judiciary, the question of a judicial nominations, public administration, the third branch of our government, it is important and we cannot live

with the delays that we have. that there is a close consultation process with senators, it -- >> will come back to this after hearing from president obama why the white house. >> the last few days, the american people have watch the situation unfolding in egypt. you have seen enormous demonstrations by the egyptian people. we have borne witness to the beginning of a new chapter in the history of a great country. a longtime partner of the united states. my administration has been in close contact with our egyptian counterparts on a broad range -- and a broad range of the egyptian people as well as others across the region and across the globe. throughout this period, we have stood for a set of four principals. first, we oppose violence. i want to commend the midst -- the egyptian military for the professionalism and patriotism that it has shown thus far in

allowing peaceful protests while protecting the egyptian people. we have seen tanks covered with banners and soldiers and protesters embracing in the streets. going forward, i urge the military to continue its efforts to help ensure that this time of change is peaceful. second, we stand for universal values. including the rights of the egyptian people for freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, and the freedom to access of information. we've seen incredible potential for technology to empower citizens and the dignity of those who stand up for a better future. going forward, the analysis will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal right of all human beings. in egypt and around the world. third, we have spoken out on behalf of the need for change. after his speech tonight, i

spoke directly to president mubarak. he recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable. but change must take place. indeed, all this privilege to serve in positions of political power do so at the will of our people. through thousands of years egypt has known many moments of transformation. the voices of the egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments. it is one of those times. now it is not the will of any other country to determine each of's leaders. only the egyptian people can do that. what is clear and what i indicated tonight to president mubarak is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now. furthermore, the process must include a broad spectrum of

egyptian forces and opposition parties. it should lead to elections that are free and fair. and it should result in a government that is not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the egyptian people. throughout this process, the in nine states will continue to extend the hand of partnership and friendship to -- and we stand ready to provide any assistance necessary to help the egyptian people as they manage the aftermath of this process. of the last few days, the passion and the dignity that has been demonstrated by the people of egypt has been an inspiration to people around the world, including here in the united states. it is all those who believe in the inevitability of human freedom. the people of egypt, particularly the young people in each of, i want to be clear -- we hear your voice is. i have an unyielding belief that you will determine your

identity and sees the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren. and i say that as someone who is committed to a partnership between the united states and egypt. there will be difficult days ahead. any questions about egypt's future remain unanswered. but i am confident that the people of egypt will find those answers. that truth can be seen in the community in the streets, in the mothers and bothers embracing soldiers, and it can be seen in the egyptians who linked arms to protect the national museum. the new generation protecting the treasures of antiquity, a great chain protecting an ancient civilization to the promise of a new day. bernanke very much. >> you can see president mubarak announcing today that he will

not seek the presidency again tonight at c-span at a 30 p.m. eastern. here's more from a discussion of judicial nominees and the confirmation process already in progress. >> the prerogative of the senate takes for itself. it is not something that is one way or the other. >> we have time for a couple of questions from the audience. i am sure there are a lot of people. in the back. please wait for the microphone. >> thanks very much -- is it on pressure mark i am sorry. in various disputes, when people are getting all kinds of discovery delayed, the things that permits to wake the case. i am wondering if with respect

to the delays being a function of things internally to cases progress, or delays caused by the lack of staff, and secondly, because a lot of that is the magistrates or do we need the same confirmation process with respect to magistrates? is that the same? in his it possible thinking outside the box structurally to get these outside arbitrations and aaa, all those arbitration mediation groups lutein somehow by the court for those civil litigants and not in the crippled -- criminal part, to opt for mediation but do not want to pay for themselves? and mediation from magistrate or another group, some way to divert some of those cases said

that they can seek resolution quicker? >> carolyn, you may be the best. >> it takes both sides agreeing. if they do not agree, unless it is mandated by the court, both mediation and arbitration are consensual jurisdictions. there is no way that someone can impose it upon them. obviously if it is offered as an option, and one person wants to get their dispute resolved and is willing to agree, the other party dragging it out as they might do it with discovery will refuse. there are certain situations where it is mandated. other than that, the courts generally do not do -- do not require it. it is an option. i think in the report for the additional judges, bill, and i

was just looking for the number of the bill, but in that report, some of the studies have been done on the impact of a shortage of authorized judicial positions. i think the administrative office of the u.s. courts if you go on there website and look at how it is determined where the judicial emergences are, there are good statistics on the impact of the delay as a result of not getting the judge to hear the case. and that kind of creative approaches that judges have taken, the impact of that. you process or efficient consideration. -- diyala impact of that -- the impact of that on due process or efficient consideration. i think you will find quite a bit of statistical research

there. >> any other questions? yes. >> less test out this proposition that we can reach a bipartisan commission -- consensus. perhaps bill and carolyn on one side, mekan and on the other. i'll be the umpire. several of you have mentioned the fact that there is to be more comity. eache used to talk with other. people used to vote for the other side's nominees. the difference now is that we have a party movie frequently in lockstep. the procedural possibility, number one, what would you think of having a secret ballot on cloture votes or judicial

nominations, so that people could vote against their party without anybody else knowing it? and secondly, you have all mentioned the fact that these are lifetime appointees, which in the case of some of these young people in their 30's getting nominations, they will be on the court for a long time. agree on a practice that the last two years of a president's term, he or she only nominate people over 55. [laughter] the last year, only people over 65, so that they are not on the court for long. [laughter] >> death panel? [laughter] with respect to the first part of your question, i do not think inserting more secrecy into the

system is a good idea. there is too much secrecy already. there is too little political capital being paid because you could end up with a vote for the person at the end, but to have done every dilatory tactic imaginable to stop that from taking place. i think a lot of the pact is have nothing to do with the nominee. it is all about stopping and administration the agenda. sometimes it does. no doubt sometimes it does. but what we see is less and less of that to be the case. i think again, i will a m withekan, let's talk about nominees that turn out to be controversial. but let's not delay people who have been noncontroversial for the mere sake of delay. i think there's too much of that going on. >> i think there were very few cloture votes on nominees.

and as carolyn manchin, -- mentioned, people are not worried about voting against their party. but i think we have run about -- run out of time. i want to thank our panelists, and especially mekan, for providing us with a counterpoint. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> sunday, we will come in that terrible welcome emmet tyrrell, with his latest book, "after the hang over." join our three-hour discussion with your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington

journal," our live program about the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house, and on weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs, "the communicators," "newsmakers," "q&a," and prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org, and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span -- washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> former house speaker newt gingrich and howard dean will debate live tonight. it is posted at george washington university. it is expected to get underway

shortly in two minutes. for about a story we have been covering today. hosni mubarak, the man who ruled egypt for 30 years, has said he will not run for reelection. he will oversee the peaceful transition of power ahead of the to september elections there. in a statement, john kerry said, "this was an important announcement by president mubarak to bring his presidency to an end and pledge that free and fair elections will be held. i believe that president mubarak should in list the military and civil society. that is from john kerry this afternoon. president mubarak's statement is coming up after this debate at george washington university. it was show him announcing he will not run for a new term in september elections. that is at a 30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. we're waiting on the debate between newt gingrich and howard

b

>> they are debating why pier and george washington university tonight. we are talking about what is happening in egypt. president obama is making a statement he said he spoke with the president. he recognizes that it is not sustainable. he said he told the president that a transition must be meaningful.

>> welcome to george washington university. i am chairman of the college of republicans. it is our pleasure to welcome me

in. never before had the most prominent protestant organizations collaborated on an event like this bil. we recognize that despite standing on opposite sides of the spectrum, we were united by the idea that we wanted to encourage activism among the student body. our organization aims to make the george washington university a beacone to tell everyone and we need not be divided. before we began, there are a few people that deserve recognition. i like to thank our programming director and our vice president. they put in quite a bit of work.

i get all the attention that is really bears. as well as ours didn't activities advisor -- as well as our student activities adviser. we cannot do well without them. i like to thank our director of publication for publicizing this event as the rest of my a sticky to board >> -- rest of my student board. i like to extend our gratitude. our moderator is the professor

of this. help me extend a warm welcome. for democrats everywhere, let me introduce the 79th governor of t.e state of vermont it is my pleasure to announce the former speaker of the house newt gingrich. >> thank you. welcome. i want to thank all the

organizers and co-sponsors predel. there is a special kind of energy where you have students and have the passion, ambition come and adazzle to pull this off. it makes it a great place to be. my job is to facilitate this by asking substantive questions regarding the previously agreed .pon topics for t they reflect this for a provocative exchange.

it gives it a sense of the intellectual underpinning capit. i will ask one debater a single question to get the ball rolling. i will then ask the next for a response. i may redirect to the conversation. i will exercise some discretion in keeping us on a pace to cover of five topics. each candidate will have the opportunity to give a brief statement. >> thank you.

>> thank you to george washington for doing this. it is wonderful. it may be the only place where a college a democrat and republican share the same headquarters. s oughtk the president to write congress and show them how is down. we want to get to this. 2008 was a pivotal election. it is the first time in my lifetime people under the -- the more people under the age of 35 voted then people over the age of 65. it is a milestone. the first thing you do is select a multi-cultural president.

your generation, unlike mine, i did not live with they will all lot of different kinds of people. you grope with every fiber of race, sexual orientation, religion. we like each other. we disagree on a lot of things. this is a transition point for the country. there are a lot of changes that will happen. your generation has a larger

band with them by a generation. -- bandwidth than my generation. you are more fiscally conservative. we will have to deal with this. there is a lot of change coming down the pike. i think this country is in great hands. i am delighted that our shoes will be filled by people your age. we should have a role say no one over the age of 50 should serve in the united states senate and then we should be set. [applause]

>> i want to mention that i have three current students that are working with me here beg. they were able to brief me on what this would be like. i do want to set the stage by disagreeing with my good friend a little bit. i am not sure what life was like before. in my generation we dated, too. i thought i would start with that. it is not like we all invented the world anew every 40 years. there is obviously disagreements about the president from the.

i want to make some big differences. we are not a multicultural country. we are a multi-ethnic country. there is a huge difference. 80% of the american people believe in american exception alyssum. they believe and private property rights and people working with each other. there is an enormous, and american civilization. the people come here to become america. this is an important debate to have. why did it work here?

we do something magic here. the last generations are free to talk about it. they are afraid to focus on it. that is very dangerous brit. the great flaw -- and president obama was a great candidate, he did a remarkable job -- the core flock in the campaign was that i believe candidates obama thought the president of the united states could save the country. that is impossible. there are 513,000 elected

officials. there are 305 million people. the tv series of most republics where we are is a "wagon train." when americans had wagon trains that moved west, you denied hire someone and say wake me when we get to los angeles. you had to feed your own horses. if you were attacked, you had to be part of the defense course. we need a fundamental change in this country. it is impossible for a bureaucratic centralized washington-based system to effectively govern a country

this size. we are in real trouble. that is the point i want to make. your generation -- there are moments in history that transcend normalacy. you either stand up and make it work or your country collapses. the problems are so much bigger than george w. bush and barack obama, so much bigger than newt gingrich. if we do not find a way to have an adult conversation and a recent your our system, we are in deep countrtrouble as a coun.

thank you. let's begin that adult conversation. the first topic is healthcare. the first question is for governor dean. you have been an advocate for more sweeping reform of the health care system. in december of 2009, you wrote that it would do more harm than good to the nation. with republicans in control of the house and the alternative having shifted, i wonder if you are prepared to defend president obama's claim in the state of the union address. >> when i wrote that, if somewhat helped in the house. it is a republican bill. it uses most of the private

sector. the strike to belittle this down. -- let tried to whittle this down. there is much more transparency in buying insurance. that will help in the existing system. i do not think anybody thinks they want to go back to the system of allowing insurance companies to keep you off the road if you get sick. to say a 26 year old cannot stay on their insurance policies. it is bureaucratic. we need to allow people choices.

we have a private sector system. this is called medicare. is a single payer system. we have a socialist system of health care bri. i think people should choose was system they want. if people want to be in a socialist system, it is commented by the exchange is this fixable? i do not know. i would have liked it to come out differently. the biggest problem is that

there is no cost control for any of these. we get paid for doing things whether you need them or not. this system is broken. quebec has plenty of problems with their system. this makes a lot more sense of what we are doing. i do not think it needs to be run by the government. economic incentives work. that is why we have the rate of inflation going up. >> let me start with a very

simple question. heineman if you have a cell phone? raise your hand. -- how many of you have a cell phone? raise your hand. how many you have a modern cellphone like an iphone or an android? raise your hand. have you ever wondered why it is that some technologies collapse and yet we have a health system that is a total mess? in 1943, when the government traded on wage and price control by allowing companies to offer insurance to their workers as a device, we have the private sector your resume.

if you were responsible for your you become a lot closer to controlling this. to show you how bad the system is, american express pays. 03 of one is term -- pays ;.03 of 1% in fraud. you are 330 times more likely to pay eight crok in the government then -- a crook in the government of then the private sector.

if you really want to dramatically reduce costs, you have to have tort reform and a reasonable source of adjudication. we did a study. the doctors estimated that a tender billion dollars a year -- $800 billion a year is spent on defensive medicine. we produced three charts which you can download for free. the first is 18 square feet and has 159 federal offices. the second is 15 square feet and has all of the deadlines.

the third should be 90 square feet. it is the 1900 number to grant the authority to washington bureaucrats. i know they believe the federal government command offices in nationwide deadlines. i think this is a very improbable system. i do not worry about global budgets. i worry about your help and my grandchildren's help, my mother in mom's help. help is a personal and not a global thing. that is why i would not like to see the canadian model year. -- model here.

[applause] >> i will disagree with that. i think the canadian model works. there are some problems with it. we should have an american model. but i do disagree with a lot of what he said. who is going to like 1500 offices? we are spending an enormous amount on health care. they are great with health care. every time our rate goes up, that is caused by the business community.

the system we have does not work. it is a plan. where i disagree is individual choices. republicans have always loved the savings account. i never once [unintelligible] it does not work like that. will make a difference in the margin it? yes. it is $40,000. we need a cancer, you will not [inaudible]

you have to have a different model. it is a significant issue predel. the big problem is, how will we have a different timing? i have not heard one suggestion from the right cited the aisle as to how you might control the florida. the guy was on the board of the biggest hospital. you ask us for an 11% increase. of course your premiums will go

up. i agree with these medical decisions being put back in the hands of doctors and nurses. if living within our means means all of us do and not just congress, it is time we live for ourself. >> we should move on to the next topic. >> it is very different. the fact that governor dean is saying that things are not free market is so much of the democratic party. if he -- the one thing i

believe in is the transparency of cost and quality. if you go to the mayo clinic or utah, all these places are less expensive with better outcomes. i thought they would shop as intelligently. 90% can be negotiated. this p, -- this idea that people are trapped is not true. it is not how america works. if you want alternatives, go to

helptransportation.net. -- healthtransformation.net. i think there are good ways to benefit the cause. >> there are obvious parallels between the political situation today and that of 1994. the economic situation is more precarious than it was in 1994. president obama has made some political issues.

is the stance on federal spending really viable? >> other than the fact that that is a loaded way to describe. burn.a notslas slash abdnd 55 million out of a budget of how many trillion debt. we balanced the budget. we adopted the first tax cut in 16 years preve. people left food stamps and medicaid and unemployment and

began paying taxes because they had a job. president clinton -- it was very tough negotiating with him. we spend 35 days. the deficit is bigger than the entire government. the deficit alone is bigger than the entire government for thei. i think it would be a good starting point. >> with this money amounted defense? like if you could find a way, sure. awk but a cheap hawk.

we have procurement programs the zwirn -- that run 15-20 years. if you and the federal government he would save $125 billion a year -- if you ran the federal government like a high- technology company, you would save $125 billion a year. you want to be smart, and not cheap. georgia and last week reported a 36% teenage unemployment. this is very dangerous bill when

he starts giving aid generation of young males with no future, you have a scale of problems that are very dangerous. this is the dominant source of crime and social unrest. this is a very deep problem. i think they should hold hearings. they should have a series of hearings and job creation. the bills are designed to keep the economy going. >> this is one where we would disagree on the specifics. we do not disagree as much as you would expect on principle. originated both

parties. 60% of all the deficit was caused [inaudible] both president obama and pr president bush -- the entire world economy was on the verge of collapse. i supported hank paulson when they did these things even though it kill me to bail out these people on wall street. we would have been worse off. these are tough decisions. you have to pull together. i've always been a deficit

hawk. i do not think these republicans are deficit hawks. they do not like taxes but they do not talk on taxes. i do not think you are ever going to come to a bipartisan deal with it you think he will continue to give tax breaks to people who make millions of dollars a year. i do not think that is going to happen. i am not and willing. democrats were very upset with me. i'm not afraid in making cuts. the government has to provide a safety net. the government has to provide

for a defense. i think we ought to go back to the tax rate. this is one reason why they were able to balance the budget. adding republicans get a lot of credit for it. one thing i think we ought to do -- we are not doing much in creating jobs. they are starving for capital. it is in the last places in the world where we have a huge advantage.

this is not help the economy. what helps the economy is investing in biotechnology. i will get rid of all the preference for capital gains. you pay 0% tax unless you earn it. america needs to be great again and get back into manufacturing. >> there are a couple places -- to describe taxes but money that

belongs to the government. the money does not belong to the government of ind. if you go out and work hard the one light is the government's money. republicans lost in 2006. people got ahead of the spending. they said they approve more than one government source spending. i think you can get a balanced budget without raising taxes. if you want to compete with china, i would go the opposite directions. china has zero capital gains tax. would i like to drop my money in america where they will grab it

or somewhere safe? guess where they send it? i agree with helping the biological industries. it is a great industry. it is $20 billion a year. i am very attracted to this. you have to fundamentally overhaul the fda. i will show you how deep our problem is. in 1999, a doctor at harvard grew seven bladders for children and put them back in

the kids. they had a rare disease. 12 years later, they are all still alive. the seven letters cost $7,000 each. they then transferred over to the commercial division. under a commercial provision of the fda, the next 16 bladders cost $6.6 million each. they were totally artificially created by the government. new eans that all mov implementation will be done outside the united states because the food and drug administration is so distracted. they have figured out a model to

do very well. you have to reform regulation, taxation come and help, and energy. it'll be hard -- taxation, hel alth, and energy. hard.be >> i love germany health care. but they have universal child care. bring it on. >> while attention has been focused on the split between president obama and progressive democrats, there is a more fundamental divide given some moderate democrats on certain issues. the president campaigns and vocal opposition on wiretapping

and military tribunals. two years into the presidency, very little has changed. does the present so represent democratic parties? >> let me explain this bil. i was very proud when the president said he would close guantanamo bay. is an extraordinary country because we have an extraordinary founding documents which set a high bar of idealism. that is true. that is why people are aspirational about this country. one domino represented one of the region guantanamo bay

represented an exception to that -- guantanamo bay represented an exception to that. i agree with the president. what has changed is that the president is now president and not candidates obama. suddenly the director of the cia in says something like this -- we have these 150 people. we can probably let 30 of them go. we have to have an open courtroom to discuss all of this. we have to out our entire pakistani intelligence operation. they are risking their lives in the security of the united states. now what do you do? now you have the principles that are important. you also have the safety of the country. that is what has happened.

i am willing to cut the president a lot of slack on afghanistan and on civil rights stuff even though guantanamo bay is a terrible symbol. it is a matter of national security. it is a bad idea that never have been started but we did. now we have inherited it. it'll be incredibly hard to close. i also believe we never should have gone into iraq. i do not have a lot of problems with the foreign policy. there are those that obviously do. i respect him. standing up for constitutional principles is very important. but when you are sitting in the chair, it is harder to make .hose decisions for th

10% of all the people at guantanamo bay are now back fighting with the terrorists. you have to think about these things. it did not make the guantanamo bay right. it might be the lesser of a couple of very bad evils. [applause] >> i think this is a particularly good night to talk about national security because of what is going on in the middle east. i hope that most americans will listen carefully to the dialogue pre. this is not about the presidents of but about the american system. any honest assessment on 9/11

this year, 10 years after, will have to include losing the war. they are teaching hatred. the network of terrorists is bigger and not smaller. it is moving to a different society. in pakistan, the governor was killed by his own body guard. there is the real possibility that egypt will join plaza and lebanon -- joining gaza and lebanon. you have to understand how serious this is in the long run. the attorney general said that 126 americans have been indicted

in the last two years for terrorism. 126. he cannot bring himself -- there is a movie called "america at risk, wel." someone asked him, does radicalism has something to do with this? i do not know. various people were trying to kill us but they may have some connection to radicalism. a car bomb fails to go off in times square. our entire apparatus goes down. they noticed the car is smoking. the cop notices a. noticesb sachs squad know

a. they do not say it is radicalism but maybe it is someone opposed to obamacare. out of hundreds of terrorist incidents, none were by people who were opposed to obamacare. the car bomber was a pakistani who lied to become an american citizen this will tell you of how bad our lead to war. do you swear an oath of allegiance? he said, you are my enemy. i am at war with you. i lied. that is such a strange concept. your generation will face a long struggle at least as long as the cold war. i think it to be very dangerous andh psychological -

biological warfare for a bill we need to have a conversation about how bad it can get -- warfare. we need to have a conversation about how iback a can get. >> heineman conduct a full listing on radical islam. radical anything is what is -- i am uncomfortable focusing on radical islam. radical anything is what is the problem. [applause] if we arrested 126 peoples for terrorism, let's say we missed three times, their 2000 people in america trying to blow us all up. that means there are many who are not trying to do that. citizens whorican cynicis

are fighting against terrorism. what radicals do is that they polarize people. when we signed up for this mission and made of this incredible constitution. we are getting there. there is a difference between what is going over in egypt and what happened in years ago.

it does not have to be this way. i do not think any fundamentalism is an attractive quality. you cannot fight intolerance with intolerance. the radicals that are attacking us are and misogynist --- are bigots and misogynistic. i do not like the term radical islam. it singles out a bunch of people know i do not believe are radical.

>> i think this is an important dialogue. i would be happy to fight an alternative term for thei. there have been no radical norwegians or from des moines. i said nothing about those folks. to suggest that servite -- describing accurately the belief system of the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda and aqaba did the job -- does not need to be smeared. -- we are where i

wary of adding replaced with a muslim brotherhood d. the core belief is to destroy islam and history the united states. all these folks who were apologetic about progress were apologetic about germany and italy -- please do not tell the truth about how dangerous it is because then i have to do something. you will find out in the next few years that there are no norwegian schools and teaching hatred. we ought to be telling the saudis that we will take extraordinary steps to cut of their funding to ended the hatred.

at some point, we ought to have the courage to tell the truth about this. i am happy to have an alternative phrase. they have the courage to say what happens but th. to have the accuracy to describe to the hour. it does not suggest that modern muslins we ought to talk honestly about where the problems are.

>> we will move on now. >> the first question on immigration is for you. you have put an emphasis on bridging the divide between the republican party and the latino culture. he recently hosted a forum on .atino issues per th they are not inclined to focus on immigration. given the centrality, is there

any path there? >> i love the way these things get set up. when marco rubio became the center from florida -- cheers] when a number of new hispanics were in there, i find it fascinating that we have a problem for th. the present minister emphasized

correa. columbia is more important in many ways --- korea. colombia is more important in many ways . you should have a series of steps we want legality. we want easy deportation of felons. we expect every language. we believe every citizen ought to learn american history, both

american born in first generation beg -- first -- both american-born and first generation. i would never trust the federal government with these programs. any employer who hires people who are not starting to be american citizens, i would hammer them economically t