congress needs to meet its responsibility to place a. it relates only to commitments we had in the past. it is whether we should pay our passed bills. rather than designing schemes. they are designed to allow us to make interest payments by breaking our commitments to seniors and veterans. we should be working together to narrow our differences on how to solve the causes of our future deficits. i want to say that if the fiscal agreement is not reached, the debt limit must be increased. it is not an option for congress to obey the basic responsibilities to protect creditworthiness. our responsibility is to seize

this moment. when they agree that deficits matter. living within our means is not an option but a necessity. putting this office no longer possible. our objective is to build a bipartisan consensus. this will help restore confidence that washington is up to the many challenges we face. it still helps give businesses and investors what they need. it'll help preserve a strong economic foundation necessary for protecting our national security and give us the room we need to invest in the future. thank you. i will be happy to take your questions. [applause]

>> you have outlined an ambitious and optimistic scenario. you have been able to craete ,-- create confidence in the financial situation and to perfect -- personally. this will have to be sold to a very difficult audience. are you going to be taking the lead in this effort? and i know this is something that you have stepped out forcefully and as an individual. but it is not just the debt

ceiling. it is the economic future. this is something he will be taking a lead in? >> it is central to my role. this is the president's conviction. he has but the vice-president of the united states in charge of negotiating the solution. he has been leading the negotiations. i think they are the most talented team of people. they were the central architects of the best president we had. i will tell you why we are optimistic this was a massively complicated endeavor. this is not as hard as that. it feels politically more

difficult. it is not nearly as hard as that. if you listen to what american people say, they are much more confident. they put it near the top. you see republicans and democrats to join and embrace this. this is the critical moment.

i'm confident about the economy. we need to get ahead of this. we want to take this opportunity to do it. >> are there any secretaries of the treasury stock we look to as models? that you admire for the job they do? quite so many of them. i will read you a quote since you asked me. >> this is not stage. i promise. >> this is about the debt limit. i am going to read you to paribas. "i should stress that defaulting on already outstanding, that'll hasot obligations greater effects when spending authority. such as when there is a delay in action.

a failure to pay what is already do will cause serious harm to our credit. it is not remotely similar to a glassman authority to encourage new obligations. i cannot over emphasize the damage that would be dumb. it is unprecedented. market chaos in interest rates in the uncertainty would produce a global economic and financial calamity. the chill generations have to pay dearly for the 200 year old trust.

>> do you think the rhetoric is [unintelligible] isn't baloney? is it real? >> they will not take too long, they will not play politics with it. the real challenge is how to build a political consensus on a sensible way to bring a fiscal position. we have a moment to make progress here. our hope and our expectation is

that we can get something serious done. we are not going to be able to resolve a decades of ideological divide in the short timeframe that we have. we have a lot of overlap and objectives, our challenge is to lock them in. >> man and i ask, do you hope to remain secretary of the secretary as long as obama -- >> as long as we do not solve our fiscal problems? we have a lot of -- we have a lot left to go. we are father than i thought would be. we have a lot of challenges left. it has been a great privilege for me to work with such people. >> i am thinking about it a lot these days. >> do you expect that the legacy

of tim geithner as a secretary of the treasury -- >> will be debated for a long period of time. >> the reality of it is that when you announced your plan right after you became secretary you were hammered by practically everybody. that tune has changed dramatically. you have changed dramatically, i think, at least, that is the way you presented. >> i am the same person. >> not only are you the same person inside, one of the questions all along is, is the obama administration able to make this case -- a case that is compelling -- compelling but not accepted by americans. it cannot be done better? can you do better at that? >> i do not know if i can.

as you can tell, i am not a political person. i tell my staff -- they tell me i can make any simple problems sound complicated. i am not the person to ask that too. i think you are right to point out -- a huge part of making economic decisions is being able to explain not just what we are trying to do but why the options we propose are better than the alternatives. my colleagues accuse me of sank all the time that a plan beats -- sank all the time that "a plant beets no plan." the hardest thing to do in economic policy is to explain why the alternative seems more

simple and compelling, more just, more clear, i think the big challenge personally for me is to find a way to explain the choices we have to make so that people understand you have to do something by alternatives. what is clear from the fiscal policy debate we face today, it is easy to say to people that this is something we have to do. of course, that is just the beginning. you have to invest in the difficulty of the choices and the trail off and explain so they know why it is so hard. i think that is the essential challenge of communication in economic policy. >> one of the things that the obama administration has been chilled -- criticized for is being done to worry to compromise.

this is a situation where compromise is seen as essential. do you have a sense of how far is too far in the way that you actually personally look at things and recognize that there is a way you believe in and the way you don't? >> i tried to say this in my remarks. i think there are things we are prepared to do, we are not prepared -- prepare to do, and will not sacrifice. given the stakes in the moment, we cannot set up a dynamic were people on any side of the aisle use this as a chance to legislate a particular political agenda. i think what is at stake for us and why a balanced plan is so important is because, again, if you think about the challenges we face, unless you do this in a broad, a balanced way, you will be imposing damage.

our capacity to invest in our future, invest in things to make us stronger, commitments to the port and the elderly, social security. it is not possible to offer people the choice of trying to do this just on spending that they cannot see and do not believe in. it is not a responsible alternative. i think the core things we have to defend our the necessary functions to grow. i think we have to preserve that. i think that is why you need a balance. >> i want to invite those of you who are here to address a question to the secretary. i would ask that you indicate you want to do that by holding up your hand and wait until you get a microphone. >> hello. mr. secretary, thank you very much.

you say you are not a political person. just a quick question. assuming a deal is reached on midnight august 1, -- >> had to stop you there. this is not the kind of thing you want to take to the edge. if you leave people with any doubt, they will start to act in a way that protects them from the possibility if we do not act. you cannot wait for that minute. >> well, pick a day. but what would you predict that the deal would look like? >> i think it will look like -- it should have a basic framework that locks in deficits, gets them low enough and holds them there, a down payment of specific savings across

government functions as much as we can, and a remaining balance of choices. if you do not want to leave too much of the burden for the plan on the enforcement mechanisms. the more you can identify up front, the more believable it will be. it will leave a smaller burden. that is what it has to look like. >> given the short term situations here, do you have reason to believe that the leadership of the republican party will work with you on this? >> absolutely. they are sitting at the table with us. we are talking about detailed spending, detailed reforms. we are going systematically through all the areas where the money is. i think they are actually realistic. not all of them are realistic, but i think the leadership is realistic about what is possible. >> rory o'conner.

you said part of your plan is to generate new revenue. you are optimistic about that happening. >> i did not say i was optimistic that we have broad enthusiasm along -- among republicans for revenue. we do not. it is going to have to come. it is going to have to happen. that is what they demonstrated with a plan the past to the house. but that plan shows is, if you pretend you cannot touch revenue, that you are forced to live with cuts that will be completely unacceptable to the american people. i am not optimistic that you see the basis for revenue for now, but it will have to come. >> he did say further that the republican leadership has assert the president -- has ushered the

president that you will get the debt limit done. speaker boehner was here recently, he made no bones about it. he said no revenue is off the table. >> i think it will be better for business confidence, better for individuals to know the precise shape of reforms to come. that would allow them time to adjust. we cannot do full clarity for resolution without a comprehensive approach. if they are unwilling to put revenues on the table, we will be able to do less up front. that is the basic reality of the situation. you have to lock in as much as you can as far as spending and reform, and you have to leave open were the balance is going to come from. it will come from a mix of tax cuts, raising revenues. the precise mix of that balance has to be forced by the careful

design of a trigger. i think that is the realistic framework that is achievable now. you cannot put it all on what people call process changes, process commitments. it has to be real things that people can hear and see for it to be believable and credible. that is a difficult balance. ultimately, you are going to need more of everything. >> how concerned are you about the leadership factor of the imf? what are your thoughts. >> i cannot comment on the case. i think it is important that the board of the imf formally put in place for an interim period somebody acting it as manager.

he is a very capable person with a lot of experience. >> you have known him for a while? >> there is a lot going on in the world. a lot in europe in particular. you want the imf to be helpful in that situation. i am very confident they will be. >> so there has been other policy attempts to try to impose some kind of trigger including, i would argue the debt ceiling is one policy -- >> i will stop you there. the debt ceiling has never proved a valuable device for discipline. i think it has been raised 70 times at a period when congress was piling on lots of debt. you are right to say -- we have

enough experience with our design that we can design around things without undermining the past. they comply a huge viable role. take a look at the effect on discretionary spending in the '90s. if you do not have the money with in that cap, you have to find ways to spend more. you cannot cut taxes without finding a way to raise more revenue. you cannot add spending without raising more money. it is a perfectly feasible discipline. the challenge we face is to have to put it on the overall deficit. you have to bring the deficit down. >> it just seems like there have been other attempts in the past by politicians to tie themselves.

politicians always find a way seemingly to either on to the trigger or what ever -- >> i think it is different now. they are swollen by the recession. they are swollen by temporary factors with the crisis. they are very high now. there is more recognition and across the political spectrum to lock things it now. you cannot put all the burden on the trigger. i totally agree with you. you have to have as much distance as you can up front for it to be believable. unless you are going to see republicans and democrats come together in six weeks, eight weeks, on these fundamental questions that still divide them on tax reform, the ultimate shape of medicare, then we are

forced to try to figure out what we can embrace that will recognize the reality of that constraint and still allow us to begin the process of restoring the fiscal position. that is why we are debating this. they can help complement this. they can help constrain the loss of virtue. >> hi, sarah boxer. if the debt ceiling is not raised by august 2, what is the immediate consequence? you want me to read the note again? i cannot approve on that. i cannot know the consequence for sure. we are not going to experiment with it so we can understand it. we are the united states of america. coming out of this crisis, not a

chance. >> regarding corporate tax reform, what is going to be the basic driving thrust about it? i was speaking to somebody at an oil conference a couple of weeks ago, we were talking about energy policy. i talked about getting rid of subsidies and windfalls. he talked about how everyone has subsidies. >> the central russian all -- rationale for tax reform should be to lower the rate to a level that puts us more in the range of our trading partners and to make it possible by dialing back or reducing the tax expenditures that i will say litter the

corporate tax code. that is a sensible thing to try to do. it is a hard thing to do. it will raise the tax rates of different companies and industries. why should we want to live with a tax code where every year people do not know what is going to be the tax preference for certain activities? what would you want to live with a tax code of where it is the quality of your lobbyists that determine a key part of your business? that makes no sense for the country. we argue that this is worth trying to do. it will be politically difficult to do. i think it is a sensible thing to do. the challenge for us is that given we are to be divided on some issues for some time, we want to find things that republicans and democrats can do together that are not inherently partisan. we have to find ways that we can

do that that are going to be good for the economy. >> is there any chance of a flat tax for corporations? >> i do not think so. i do not think there is a realist process for that. >> i have a question of corporate tax reform. are you going to seek agreement on corporate tax reform as a part of the entire fiscal obligation? >> not in the next two month framework. we have a lot to do. we are going to try to get the process moving and build political support for it. i think realistically that the fiscal debate we are having is going to dominate our preoccupation for the next couple of months until we get through it. we have been doing a lot of work on how to figure out sensible design. we would like to move forward on

that we can. >> what will be the time frame? a year? >> i think we want to take a run of doing this ahead of the election. we need to get this fiscal stuff and a better trajectory. >> mr. secretary, i wrote a little book about the administration this year. one thing i have never been able to figure out is this, during the primary season, barack obama took a lot of heat from hillary clinton saying he admired the way ronald reagan changed the discourse and brought new ideas into the debate. i thought he was right. yet, as president, he has not tried to do that. he has not tried to move in the yard line down the field so that the debate on economics would be conducted on traditionally

democratic brownson said of republican grounds. he has left itself vulnerable to republican arguments because that is what he came into. that is not what reagan did. i am just wondering if there was a decision to use the bully pulpit to try to move the fiscal policy into a new direction. but i think i'm the wrong person for that question. i am not a politician. i am not the political strategist. you know, i will say, if you look at what this president accomplished so far, he has made it the most dramatic changes and progress on things progressive democrats care about that have been achieved in a very long time. you want to judge him by not just what he has tried to

achieve but the magnitude of those basic reforms and the courage he showed in doing such difficult things with little support. remember back how this place felt in the fall of 20008. everything was at risk. he did not sit there and say, what does have a debate about what would be interesting to do or when the republicans will join him in some bipartisan effort. he chose to do the hard and tough thing very early at a huge political cost. he portrayed enormous political courage. that was the necessary, and decisive thing to do.

there was no progress of cause that would have been possible without the progress he achieved in the hundreds of billions dollars we save the taxpayer resources so we could have some capacity to support things democrats care about. i am not giving you a political answer to your question. >> i know we discussed historical perspective, but since you lived in the far east and some of those countries rebounded quicker than we have, i wanted to know if you saw any models for adoption as far as which ones? >> i think this is important to recognize. barney frank once said that you cannot win an election on -- when things and got worse. it is hard for most people to understand how perilous the moment was 2 1/2 years ago.

even with the history of the great depression, it was hard to understand for people how difficult that was. what is even more difficult to understand is why can growth not be faster now? what does that look like we are going to be growing at a much lower rates? that is because, of course, this is a crisis born in part of the fact that we were living way beyond our means. people had taken on a much more debt than they could comfortably support with the income they were going to earned. he's got a huge increase in leverage in the financial system. when you are coming out of a crisis like that, it just takes more time. monetary policy cannot do what it normally does to accelerate growth out of a recession.

it takes people time to bring down those debt burdens to rebuild their balance sheets and to work off the huge investment. back and find you along with the limits of monetary policy in a crisis like this. it is a tragic fate. it confined to a slower rate of growth. the disappointment people have today in the face of recovery is just the tragic consequence of what caused this basic courses. it is going to take years still for us to work through this. i still believe that the basic strategy that we embrace for the financial crisis, i think it will be judged as the most effective strategy in history. i think it compares favorably to any experience by developed countries or a developing

country. again, just look at the state of parts of europe to date relative to us and the consequence of adopting a dramatically different and much less aggressive strategy. the peak of this rescue, we had -- we are likely across all programs to be well under $100 billion, a fraction of the gdp of the united states. we are so aggressive in adopting a strategy of bringing private capital and when we could. we manage our finances much more aggressively and much more quickly and a more brutal restructuring of the system than any of these countries. he saw growth, stronger here

than in many other developed economies. there are other previous recoveries that were quicker. those were recovers with the very different kind of crisis, very different cause. we do not have the option now of trying to engineer something dramatically stronger than what is in that basic path. >> i am going to ask two more questions. this lady back behind you is also been waiting patiently. the >> my question is about dodd frank. if it is going to be implemented and how much crumbling is going on as we speak? >> you are right to say that there are people even in this city who are working hard to slow it down, reduce its scope, reduce its power and its force.

the only tools they have are to try to start funding for enforcement agencies and block appointments. if they choose to debt and they get support from people, they can slow things down a little bit. i do not think they can touch the basic architecture of the reforms. we are still at the early stage of that writing the rules and laying them out for comment and designing them. we have a long way to go to do that. i think the core part of the reform will survive these efforts because i think it is the right thing for the country. people will not ultimately put up with a system that is still this of formal without reform to the type of promises. bad public opinions about this.

>> that cannot speak to those things specifically. we have a long way to go to earn back the basic confidence of the american's parent it requires a sustained response. i think we should have a lot of confidence in the basic confidence of our capacity. there are going to want to see the reforms take hold. it will provide better transparency for consumers. i think this is something that will come with time. it'll take time for them to judge. >> we are seeing the instance where the dollar is rising.

>> i am very careful not to comment on the markets beyond our careful standard phrase. that is a good practice. we want to remind people that this is an important thing we want to preserve and protect. at the worst moments of the crisis, and people started to get worried, we saw peacepeople want money for this. we need to reserve it. it has the capacity to act. we want to act to bring back confidence over time.

>> thank you v [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] coming up thursday,goodwin liu to be a ninth circuit judges. that vote is set for 2:00 p.m.. you can follow live on c-span 2.

defense secretary robert gates on what pakistani leaders knew about osama bin laden's whereabouts before he was killed. in a debate for the candidates running in new york's 26 congressional districts. later on this evening, human spaceflight and nasa funding. >> nobody succeeds in live by themselves. you must be willing to lead on others, to listen to others, and, yes, love others. >> watch 2011 commencement speeches at memorial day weekend. in search past commencement addresses from presidents, senators, and other world leaders live on the cspan library. it is washington, your weight.

-- your way. >> history is much more than politics, it is science, medicine, art, theater, poetry, ideas. we should not launch things into categories. is all part of the same thing. >> thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on "q &a," part 1 with david mccullough. >> earlier today, russian president held a news conference outside of moscow. he wore a new cold war could occur if the u.s. and russia fail to agree on missile defense

and europe. this portion runs 35 minutes. >> best in college, let me welcome you. i have been informed there are over 800 media people here. i cannot complain that i am not spending enough time with the press, though. i beat them all the time during both my daily work and during my travels and over the last

three years when i worked with the government. i have been to virtually all the different regions of this country except for two. i will soon visit those remaining two as well. i have met many of the members of the regional press. i can see some of them here which is especially nice. there has not been such a major press conference before. there is a reason for that. it makes sense to have a press conference like that to share impress sense of both of this country has been developing. once again, i would like to thank you for your interest in this press conference. i am positive that i am heading toward some interesting questions.

i do not know just how interesting you will find my answers. i am prepared to start work. let us get to it. just one last thing, one logistical of remark, this is the first press conference in the history of this country were the president will also be the emcee. it will not be anybody taking questions. if you have a problem with that, i will point my fingers at you and say "so-and-so" and "ma 'am" i think it will be appropriate to first talk to each circuit.

i was on your show, in a way of responding to that, i would like to give you the right to ask the first question. >> what i would like to ask you about is the irreversibility or the degree of irreversibility. yes, we are used to calling for -- it also has its own fence. how would you evaluate the debt of this country. >> i remember that at a certain point in time in the past we were celebrating the first year and the third year and we all know where it led to.

modernization is not cast in stone. it is a very important process. from my perspective, the most important thing is to acquire a new dimension of development in this country. modernization is not just momentum going forward. it is solidifying its successes we have achieved over the past 10 years. we are talking about a quality of change. i am absolutely positive this is not something we have achieved yet. it does not mean that we should change the flags and banners and the slogans. i am positive that the five priorities i have outlined should remain as very important technological avenues of work.

i think this is exactly what will be my biggest motivation. me and my colleagues of the government. we can work very vigorously day and night. that is why i would like to emphasize one more time, modernization is the most important avenue of development in this country. in my view, this should lead to a quality of change in this country. this is not just for us working less anniversaries, is support for me to talk about this year, this is a very special place. one that has a lot of significance. is exactly here that the technologies are being developed. it is here that the innovation center will be established. i'd like for this to be surely

known around the world. not because it is the only place where one is to make investments in, but rather than any kind of development there should be essential and important elements which becomes the structure for the entire effort. i am hoping that skolkovo will be the most important link. i would like to thank everybody who is working here. including for the fact that they have provided this room for us so that we can have the press conference. i think it is more interesting to have it here. >> i would like to ask as head of state and a trained lawyer, first, in your view, what is the relationship and what is your perspective of the relationship that russia has with the united states and the west?

what are the problems, and what is the progress that has been made? another question is also international, but it is also legal. it concerns the domestic russian plan. there has been debate whether or not it is mandatory for russia to comply with decisions made by the european court of human rights. there are many decisions made by that court that have to do with both the spirit of compliance. you know what that means. what you think about russia oppose the compliance with echr decisions? >> the subject of russia's bush's ship with nato is very vast. it is something that concerns me every day. every day this is one of the things i spent time on what i

hear reports by ministers, but i've read reports by special services, or were i prepare myself for functions at which i have meetings with foreign leaders. many of them represent me know. i believe that the relationship with nato at this point in time is decent. i believe it works well for both sides. we did have a period where we essentially stopped the relationship and it had not come from us it came from the north atlantic alliance. i considered this, it is up to them. i am talking about august of 20008. water under the bridge since then. i am pleased with my meeting in lisbon. during the summit, we raised

important issues. we agree to operate on the most strategic items on the agenda including afghanistan. there are new issues by which iowa could agree -- it which we should agree, talking about missile defenses. this is a subject i will very briefly cover. i have repeatedly cover -- offered assessments of it. we would like for them to follow clear understandable rules. it must be obvious for everybody that anti-missile defenses is a method of blocking the or cutting back on the strategic capability of a whole number of countries. what we are told this is not

about you, i do take note. there are other companies that do not have the capability that russia has, and unlikely they will have the capability over the next few years. usually we are told, is iran. if it is not against us, tell us and that s help accordingly. i am hoping that the issues that i have raised in communication with my colleague in my counterpart and a friend of president obama, those questions will be given answer to. we will be debt able to develop a model of corp. -- cooperation. unless that happens, we will have to take some kind of action and response. it is something that would not like to do at all. it would have to speed up the build up potential of the

nuclear forces. that would be a nasty scenario. 2020, my counterpart, whby is quite likely that those decisions will no longer be made by you and perhaps not by me. but somebody will be making those decisions. most likely, russian leaders will be guided specifically by these instances. that is why we have to think now about how we will hand over this problem to the future generation of politicians. this is an extremely important topic. it can ruin everything we have done over the past few years including what i think is a very important treaty of limitation. it does have a direct prohibition that if the system is developed, which means the strategic -- it will be upset,

it is something i would like all of my partners in nato to take note of. it is also to say at the same time, we are hoping that we will gain guarantees that these capabilities are not targeting us. i am not done with -- i am not done yet. there were two questions. russia is a cshr member. we have signed all the documents and must comply with them. we will continue to do so. for us membership in european institutions is important. yet, we cannot fail but see certain difficulties we are running into. we are any margin sing -- we are an emerging democracy. we have quite a few problems. occasionally, this court will make decisions against the russian federation.

on certain occasions and i think that is what you're referring to there is a feeling that the court has not made the decision in an unbiased way. that is sometimes a decision that was politically motivated. it is not something we talk about out loud, there were such opinions. that is why such opinions are being discussed in the legal quarters. somehow political leaders talk about that. that does that mean we have made our membership and we are planning to shorten our involvement. this is an outlet to call special attention to. any court must act in a way that creates a feeling among all the parties that it is not engaged by anybody. it is impartial and unbiased.

well, i have promised would give the floor to somebody from st. petersburg. anybody from st. petersburg? >> i would like to go back to st. peter berg and a more general terms to russia, i would like to ask you, would you like to be a magician? would you be able to like to work miracles? the reason i ask is because recently the celebrated, before that and after that, it is heartbreaking to read about our world war ii veterans returning to their medals to asko bought

think and live in their country. perhaps we should provide proper housing and vehicles to our world war ii veterans and not act in a shameful manner so that nobody can take the house and from our world war ii veterans and use them as collateral over something else. there are people that do that. veterans and that being homeless. my question is, is it possible to give every world war ii better in housing? you can do with. you are the president. >> well, i am not a magician. i do try to make decisions that people expect me to. that is the duty of any executive or leader. you know, just over three years ago, the seventh, 2008, i signed an order where all world war two

veterans would be given apartments. now you are asking be a question. perhaps it is time to make this decision and not abuse and humiliate our veterans. you know, i have already made the decisions. of course, is important -- it is pointless to talk about that. everybody who could have made such decisions at different points in time after world war ii was over when there were so many more veterans. i can remember the mid 1970's how the victory day was being celebrated when they were all gone. there were not much older than i am now. yet they have the same problems. the government did not give a dam about them. that is something that really hurts. that is why i think that

everybody must do today what he or she can. i was in a position to make a decision to make sure that all veterans were given housing. i did make that decision. it was not an easy decision at all. we are still talking about housing, i was told, where are you making a decision? there are not that many veterans left? it will not get the housing, their children will. this is something that their children and grandchildren will have. i think it is immoral to think like that. the government at some point in time recognize what those veterans did for all of us. second, i will tell you this, even if they leave this life understanding they have something to hand over to their children and grandchildren, that will make them happy.

this decision should be executed completely. that is why significant amount of funds are being spent on them. unfortunately, this is not happening without problems. this is something that has to be looked into. i have looked at this situation you are talking about. it was enough to call attention to this. unfortunately, this is a very ordinary situation. it does not mean that the authority should not respond to it. its decisions are embodied in may 2007, 2008 ordered, they will be followed through. whatever the cost is for the government. >> i would like to give the bike to our major media outlets.

-- give the mic to our major outlets. >> thank you for not forgetting about us. i did want to ask a question. i will ask one more time. when i was coming to this press conference, i was sure that the question about the second presidency and our relationship with putnim would be asked every minute. in principle it, could there be a situation that there will be to candidates at the presidential elections, you and prime minister put them. or is the situation where everyone will run independently. >> to be run independently but the parts together? >> it is clear that one party

cannot nominate two candidates. in that case, you will have to lead another party. you did say that in the long term, the president -- could this moment be brought closer? >> let us talk about the situation will more time. as i was answering a question from our colleague from the independent newspaper, i said that any situation should be thought through thoroughly. we hold our hands the future of mass numbers of people. this is not the we are making decisions on. our relationship with my colleague and my political partner is not just something

that is commonly known, this is a relationship that is over 20 years old. we know each other quite well. we are indeed intellectual comrades. whatever they may say about this. we do have very similar approaches to the key issues of development. that does not mean that we see eye to eye on everything. that is not how we should be. every individual has the right to own sensations and feelings in their own approaches. as far as strategy, we are close. otherwise, we would not be able to work together. that is what the decision must be based on as to what to do

next. i believe there is competition that is healthy and helpful, and there is competition. i am hoping as decisions are being made as to who will run for what coast and who will do what in the future, all will be guided by this kind of responsible approach. as far as party affiliation, if i were to run for president, i, of course, would be able to rely on forces. it is not just possible otherwise. al qaeda parties? -- what kind of parties?

>> you not going to use the microphone? just yell it out loud. >> you have been making all the efforts to improve over the last few years the climate in russia. over the last years a great deal has been said and done. yet there is recent failure of the transaction to swap shares of british petroleum. this is seen as a set-back, here is my question, what mistake did the government make as the transaction was prepared. and what are the conclusion that is the government should draw? and if i may, you said as far as

strategy you and putin do not agree but your issues have been opposite. remember the situation in the kotkowski case and about the power. could you explain this please? >> investment climate is the single most important component of our success, in the city of skolkovo, i will revisit this issue, shortly and included a forum that will be taken place in the st. petersburg forum, i invite you to attend. i do not know the outcome,

though i think of this transaction as interesting. if we put aside the difficulties of this transaction. but those involved should have paid more attention to the details and legal matters that always come up when such major documents are prepared. there should have been more thorough due diligence by the government, and i don't think this was done. that lead to complications and to collisions with other shareholders. and this is something that must be avoided and one must reach agreement before. but if at the end of the day the deal does go through, i will be very happy. in itself, it's not that bad for this country. as far as strategy, when i said

we have similar or identical positions me and prime minister putin, this is what i meant. indeed we have the same kind of education, legal education. we are trained as lawyers. and we have very similar sets of values. indeed we both want this country to be modern. we want it to be effective. we want it to look good. we want people to have a decent standard of living. we want reasonable decisions to be made that be executed and implemented. we want human rights to be complied with. we want there to be a modernized, diversified economy. but that does not mean we see eye-to-eye on tactics. i don't think it's bad, because truth should be the product of

interaction between positions and sometimes collisions. and this is what guarantees forward momentum. and perhaps my position is somewhat different from the prime minister, because he believes that modernization is a movement. and i believe that we can carry out modernization faster without damage of what is done before and to achieve good results. and to make a quantum leap forward. but that requires a lot of work. everything else is essential. the final subject and our colleague from skolkovo has asked the question, and the colleague that representatives fema radio. mr. president, it's a year to go

before your first presidency tenure is over. there will be, there will still be many important events. however, looking back at the three years that have passed. could you tell us about your main achievements and speak about your set-backs. >> i don't think it would surprise anyone or amaze anyone if i say that the obvious successes and the important achievements over the last three years are that what might have been the most difficult period of development over this country in the last decade. that's the period of the financial crisis. in employment we did not drop

the ball. we carried on all the key programs. remained in place. there was not a dramatic deterioration of the standard of living. on the contrary, we are moving forward. and that's important, if we remember the sentiments and emotions that are still strong in many european countries. countries that in certain ways are more affluent than us. but we don't have what is taking place in the financial sectors of spain, portugal and greece. and we were able to consolidate ourselves, and one should rank among achievements that we were able to execute a clear, current foreign policy. that has resulted in a decrease of tension between us and a number of countries. and that is great. that enables us to develop this

country without spending too much time on other problems. and yet we have been able to defend ourselves, and today we can defend ourselves. we can defend our independence and our sovereign approaches. what i am referring to is the most complicated events including the event of aid. and it was important for this country not to fall apart or crumble down but to fill strong. irrespective of how these events were with other countries. as far as set-backs and failures, i think the answer is obvious here. we have not been able to achieve a cardinal improvement in the standard of living for our people. we haven't developed as fast as we would like to.

yes, we are dealing with social matters and issues, but we still have a great deal of problems. there is a lot of poverty in this country. there are still individuals who are living below the poverty line, there are approximately 13% of them. and that is too high indicator for a country like ours. but more recently the number is higher. yet there is a agenda, and not able to diversify as we would like to and yet not reason enough to be forelorned or depressed but an agenda to accomplish in the future. thank you very much indeed.

>> the very last thing, i would like to express the hope that everyone who did not get to ask their question today, will get another chance. all the best. >> part of a news conference from earlier today, here is a look at our prime time schedule on c-span, starting at 8 p.m. eastern, secretary gates about what was known about osama bin laden before he was killed. and then new york 26th district debate and then human space flight, getting underway at 8 eastern. and the puauthor gordon wood s

the natural archives and that's at 7 eastern on book tv. >> on american history, regina to speak on duke ellington, and regarding the freedom rides when those black-and-white traveling. >> this weekend on book tv, on

c-span2, the gathersberg book special and a panel on the book history. and on afterwards, fredrick camp on one of the most historic stand-offs with berlin wall. >> in the senate today they wrapped up debate on republican legislation on energy, it failed to move forward. the vote was 42-57, they will move on tomorrow to take on the california law school associate dean. goodwin liu to be the ninth circuit judge. professor liu, i will show his

confirmation hearing back in march. but a preview of that vote. joini joining, david ingram, tell us who goodwin liu is? >> he's a california law professor, the age of 40. and he's got the american story, a son of immigrants and went to law and was a rhode scholar before a clerk at supreme court. which is not something that many lawyer you get to do. and he's considered controversial because republicans feel he would be the most liberal on the court if

confirmed. and he could be a candidate for the supreme court. >> when he was first nominated, how far did his nomination make? did it make it to the senate floor? >> it did, but did not get a vote. he was nominated in 2010, and he was beeni waiting a year. and he never came up for a vote on the senate floor last year. democrats were busy with health care legislation, among other priorities, and they almost brought his nomination up at the end the year. and at the last minute did not. >> you mentioned that his republican opponents think he would be among of the most

liberal judges appointed. how do his supporters respond to that? >> they think he's in the mainstream. that some of his writings for example have pointed out the benefits of school vouchers, that's not an issue that is occ dear that to the heart of most liberals. and his testimony at the hearing that of the writing that most republicans have seized on. and part is his advocacy work. he was on the board for a network group of liberal lawyers. he was chairman of that board. and that put him in a position to be sort of a spokesperson for

the liberal wing of the democratic party. >> look at is what in the senate, first why did reid put him through in the senate, and didn't get a vote last time. and has anything changed and any indication that he may get approved this time around? >> there was another vote on another judge that republicans wanted to filibuster. and that judge was in rhode island who made it through, and he survived the filibuster. and some thinking that the votes are there for goodwin liu to survive, he needs 60 votes. everyone says it will be close. there are some republicans that certainly will not filibuster him, even if they don't support his nomination. and are there enough while they

don't support liu, will not block him as some democrats blocked george w. bush. >> david, thank you for that update. >> i would like to acknowledge some distinguished members present in the audience, judy chui, bill coleman, and would like to take this opportunity to introduce the nominee for the ninth circuit.

my daughter is over a court in san francisco and i invited him for a family dinner to get to know him. and there was a legal discussion, and what i found was a very interesting and very dean of the school of california law. he's regarded in the field of constitutional law and educational law and policy. and a well regarded teacher of law at the university of california. he's a proud husband and father. he's a scholar, a formidable

intellect that cares deeply about the law and takes great care in formulating his thoughts and ideas. and he's a person with abiding commitment to public service. what also comes through in talking to professor liu is his deep appreciation that our country affords. he's the son of taiwan immigrants, his parents came to this country to work in rural areas throughout america. he spent his childhood in florida and california. he struggled first to read and later it master the english vocabulary.

valedictorian in san francisco, and attended stanford university and graduated alpha beta kappa, he served as a law clerk on the united states supreme court to justice ginsburg, he served as a legal and policy advisor in the department of education. he also has practice experience at a prestigious law firm. and now a law professor and associate dean at the bolt hall school of law.

received from berkeley the highest award for teaching. and he's a recipient of the education of law association award for distinguished scholarship. he's an elected member of the and on the board of trustees of stanford university. as a professor he's written extensively. his work is published such as stanford law review, california there is no question that some the job of scholars when they write is to be creative and is there any question that the role of a judge is different from that. and again liu's own words, i quote, the role of a judge is to

be neutral arbitator and to the laws and statutes that are an issue in the case. he clearly recognizes these are different roles, the question is can he make the transition? and i have every confidence that he can. and i have pointed out that we have affirmed other appointees for as for the fourth circuit and seventh circuit and moore on the federal circuit. moore and wilkinson were younger

than liu is now. relay it here. we had a nominate in the tenth circuit by the name of southwig. democrats were not going to vote to vote for him. clint lot came to me on the floor of senate and he said would you at the least sit down more than once, and reviewed what the allegations were, and i talked to him about them. and i decided i would vote for him. and i did vote for him and he's

circuit. and i have received a letter from him and how much he since those days we have been polarized. and it's a tragedy, because if this continue, no one can break real tragedy for those who would question goodwin liu's ability to make the transition. i would refer to you a the committee and i would like to call special attention to a letter written by kenneth starr, who is appointed to two

quote, we recognize that commentaries on all sides will is goodwin has expressed in his writings and speeches. but in the end a judge takes a vote to uphold the constitution. thus in our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily because goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest degree. we are confident that he will serve on the court of appeals, not only fairly and confidently

but with great distinction. now professor liu was a great asset to the university of california. and i believe that he will be a superb judge on the ninth circuit. it's my hope for those on this committee that don't know him, that you take the time to get to know him. sit down with him and ask questions. but please, don't turn your now i would like to ask the nominees to come forward. and we will begin the hearing. >> oh, it's just goodwin liu for the first panel. and it's my understanding you would like to introduce your

family, please proceed. >> thank you, senator feinstein and for that generous introduction. i have family members here today, let me begin with my parents, who are seated to my right. my parents came all the way from sacramento, california to be here with me again. seated behind me is my wife. ann who has made her share of sacrifices to support me in this process. and in her arms is our baby boy, emmitt. last time you remember senator feinstein, he slept through the whole thing, and hopefully we will have the same luck today. and seated next to them is my daughter, violet who turns four in a couple of weeks. she said she likes coming to these hearings, i said good for you, violet.

i apologize if there is some back and forth, but it's naptime for the kids. and i am fortunate that my wife's parents are here, they came all the way from maine where they have lived for 40 years, and i am joined by a cousin of mine, who is from salt lake city, utah, and another cousin who grew up in the chicago area. and i would like to recognize and thank the many friends and former students i have here today, in the hearing room. and i want to give a special recognition and thanks to the members of congress who are here, and especially honored that secretary bill coleman has joined us. i have often thought a lot about bill in this process, and he's been a steady guide and mentor to me. >> would you stand and affirm the oath. do you affirm that the testimony

you are about to give before the committee will be the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. >> i do. >> thank you very much. i want to ask you right off the bat about an issue that has caused considerable constellation among the members. in 2006 you considered testimony in this committee of the nomination of justice, and you referred to a lengthy hypothetical and i would like to give you another chance. >> certainly, i would be happy to address that and thanks for the opportunity. as you can imagine, senator feinstein, i have thought a lot about that testimony in this process. and i would like to acknowledge to you and the members of this

committee, what i acknowledged last year in a written response from senator kyle, and that is i think that the last paragraph of that testimony was not an appropriate way to describe justice as a person or his legal views. i think that the language i used was harsh and provocative and unnecessary. it was a summary of a few cases of the legal analysis of the pages that proceeded that paragraph. and suggested that justice solado and those practices. i think i should have omitted that paragraph. and frankly senator, i understand now much better than i did then, that strong language like that is not helpful in this

proce process. if i had to do it over again, i would have deleted it. and i hope you and others can read that statement in the parts of my record and my record shows that i am a more thoughtful person than that isolation suggests. >> thank you, some have questioned your fidelity for evolving norms and social understanding along with the text and precedent in interpreting the constitution. to me those views are well within our constitutional mainstream. i think for example, if chief justice marshall says in 1819, we must never forget it's a constitution that we are expounding and this constitution is to be adapted to the various

crisis of human affairs. or oliver william holmes spoke of this. or sandra day o'connor and the bill of rights that was in broad changing times and current problems. can you explain to us your theory of constitutional fidelity and how it's similar or different from the points these justices were making? >> certainly senator, let me answer your question by making clear. if i were fortunate to be affirmed in this position, the

duty is to follow the supreme court instructions, not any particular theory. and that's exactly what i would do, i would apply the applicable precedents to the facts of the case. i would say this, the notion of evolving norms is a reference, it's a way of describing how the supreme court has applies some texts and principles of the constitution. in some instances the constitution's text is very clear. for example, article iii says you need two convictions for a person and that's clear. and some are not as precise, and whether a wire tap falls within the fourth amendment's search

and seizure, and the court grappled with this. up to that point a physical trespass was necessary to make out that requirement. and now abandon because of the private expectation in telephone calls. and this was not just a matter of recognizing new technology, but the social norms that had grown up around using telepho s telephones. and this describes references like that and inform the supreme court's elaboration of constitutional doctrine. >> thank you. >> professor liu, i will take off where the chairman left off. you said during your last hearing, and i quote, whatever i may have written in the books and articles, would have no

bearing on my role as judge, end of quote. i want to focus on that comment as it relates to the book you co-authored, keeping faith with the constitution. as you said in the book of the theory of constitutional, and it's a bit difficult for you to say how it would have no bearing on how you would rule as a judge. so my first question should be fairly easy, a yes or no. today do you still stand by your book, keeping faith with the constitution? >> senator, i do stand by that book as an expression of my views as a scholar. and i recognize that the role of a judge and a scholar are different. and as for the ninth circuit, i will adopt the role of a judge, and to express not to follow any

particular theory i might have. but to follow the constitution on matters. >> are there any arguments in that book that today you would disavow? >> yes, sir, i haven't read through the book again, scholars do consider and reconsider their views but i can't think of any. >> in the book you termed your physical philosophy of one of constitutional fidelity. that phrase sounds nice but only what you mean by it, in the book you explained more detail your judicial philosophy, you said, quote, our basis thesis is that the way that the constitution has endured is through an ongoing process of interpretation, where that

interpretation has succeeded, it's because of, not in spite of fidelity of our written constitution. continuing to quote and what we mean by fidelity that the constitution should be consider of the ways and texts of the challenges of our society in every single generation, end of quote. it seems to me you are taking a judicial philosophy that has been largely not accepted by the american public and rebranding it. and you have said that on this approach the constitution is understood to evolve as the conditions and society change, end of quote. my question is how is your definition of living constitution different from your theory of constitution of fidelity that you described in

ways that quote, adapt its principles and text to the conditions and society in every generation, end of quote. >> well, senator what we try to do in the book is reject the notion of the living constitution. insofar as that can grow, evolve and morph into what a judge wants to say. and that's wrong, in article 5 the only context in which it can change, and we respect that. and the book mentions that the constitution is fixed and enduring and those things don't change either. the problem for the courts to do apply broad principles to the

text. for example one example, last year the court considered a case about whether or not a public employee has a reasonable implication of privacy from text messages. and the court declined to decide that issue, because it observed that the dynamics of communication are changing. not just because we have new technology, but really because society's expectation of privacy with new technology has not fully settled. and the court said that workplace norms are evolving and it's not clear what society is expected to recognize as what is reasonable. and this is another example of what you can call involving norms or social conditions of those issues. >> my time is out, i will be in

and out and will return for questions. >> thank you, this is the early-bird order, franklin, lee, sessions and cornyn. senator franklin, you are up next. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. liu, i had the opportunity to speak to you in my office, and read your writings. and i really believe you are one of the finest minds of your generation and i hope we as a nation can be lucky enough to have you as a jurist and public servant. what i think is remarkable about your nomination is not its strength but diversity of support. a lot of people have mentioned ken starrs letter supporting your nomination. and i will get to that in a moment. but the one that caught my eye is a lengthy blog post from the

university of minnesota professor, richard painter. this guy is a great law professor, and he's a liberal. he worked to support the confirmations of john roberts and samuel ledo and served as george w. bush's ethics officer. anyone who has a doubt about your nomination should read this article. madam chair, with your permission, i ask that article be entered into the record. i would ask that professor richard painter's blog post today be entered into the record. >> so ordered. >> thank you, and let me read

one thing, liu's opponents have sought to demonize him as a radical and extremist or worse. but for those who have read his writings it's clear that characteristic and hyperbole, reveal little about this qualified, measured and mainstream nominee. and i want everyone to think about that. this is a guy that participated in samuel aledo's and chief justice roberts nomination for the bush administration. and please, i ask anyone considering voting against this nominee, to read this blog post. please, i ask my colleagues to do that. let's talk about the letter from

kenneth starr and mr. amare. they write what we wish to highlight beyond his intellect and legal talents and his viewpoints and the ability to follow the facts of the political valence may be. professor amare and ken starr provide two examples to support their opinion, and one is proposition eight. writing that goodwin knows what the law is and what he wishes to to be and able to deploy what the law is. can you refer to those remarks? >> certainly, thank you for the generous remarks. as i understand it the letter

from mr. starr referred to the testimony i gave before the state assembly and the judiciary california state committees. what happened is that the california supreme court had issued a ruling that invalidated laws that restricted marriage to man and woman. and thereafter the voters of california voted an initiative that constitutionalized a marriage between man and woman, that is the full definition of marriage in california. anticipating a legal challenge to that initiative under state law, the assembly and senate judiciary committee held a hearing. that they invited me to testify of the claims that many

opponents validating prop 8 were making, that it was improper under the procedures by the constitution. and i testified that prop 8 should be upheld under the applicable precedence in existence at the time. and i wrote that the california supreme court may revisit that precedence, but it was a straightforward case. straightforward in the case that prop 8 should be upheld, and not a popular position but it was a correct reading of the law. and california supreme court agreed. >> thank you, and my time is up. >> thank you, and senator lee, you are up next. >> thank you, and mr. liu, in talking about the clause on page

72, in your book, you wrote, the court has declared certain subjects off-limits by attempting to draw a line between economic and noneconomic activity. preferring to the lopez case, a line that looks like the old distinction that affects congress and indirectly. in its incoherrence and efficacy of values. if the distinction drawn by the lopez and morrison cases and the standard established by those cases is ineffective and incoherent, is this something that you would and could employ as a judge? >> senator as with all supreme court justice precedents, absolutely, i would uphold that of the supreme court. >> what if it's incoherent, what

do you do? >> i think that the court grappled with that case, and where there was a similar characterization issue whether marijuana grown and used for local boundaries and was an activity that could reached in the clause. and the court made an accommodation, though not an economic activity, it belongs to a class of economic activity. and the rule seems that noneconomic activity that belongs to economic activity and reachable in the commerce clause. the point of the book was to suggest that definitionally that these things like all distinctions in the law, when you press hard on them, there are gray edges. and the main these are workable

in will role i would be filling if i were confirmed. >> in the wake of gonzalez versus raying, and can you identify limits on federal authority that exist outside of lopez and morrison? >> senator, it would be difficult to present a hypothetical when one doesn't know what views will be limited. but my understanding of this area begins with one supposition that the federal government is one of limited power. those of congress' powers predisposes that amendment and it makes it explicit all powers not delegated by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

and from madison to hamilton and those that followed, one of these sources confirms that constitution. and any judge that approached that question would have to yield an answer that is consistent with that proposition. >> getting back to your statement, that the distinction between economic and noneconomic is drawn between lopez and morrison that is ineffective and inefficient. is there a way to draw this class of economic distinction? >> either as to bear noncommercial gun possession of lopez, or acts of violence for morrison. >> i think that the continues themselves provide some guide to that. as i recall the lopez case was just simply did not indulge what

it said was the piling inference of inference of the doctrine. one way to read lopez i suppose is that the court is simply unwilling to develop a chain of reasoning from mere possession of an article of commerce to be sure. but the mere possession itself is not economic. to the economic effects that were positive by the defense. and that was too distant in the chain of linkages to get that effect. >> in a 2008 stanford law review article, you wrote that the problem of the courts to determine the decisions of the values on a position have diverged to a degree to be crystallized and absorbed into a

doctrine. can you tell me how a judge discerns and to what extent that a value has been crystallized so as to be part of our law? >> senator, i think in some sense, i think that's what i wrote is an unremarkable observation of the way that the supreme court elaborates doctrine. and back to the example of senator feinstein what is a reasonable expectation and what society thinks. and case is clear whether the inquiry is whether society has developed a legitimate or recognizes a legitimate or

reasonable expectation and they look to certain practices of employers and expectations of employees. and may look at the case law as it developed in the state and federal courts. this happens i think all over the constitutional jurisprudence as elaborated in the supreme court and the way that the court elaborated doctrine. >> my time has expired. >> thank you senator lee, senator koones. >> thank you, for your remarkable service and outstanding recommendation and your family's willingness to stand by you. and i am grateful, madam chair, to have visited with you in person and reviewed your writings and work, and spend time in this hearing today. i believe you would be a very

capable jurist and we would be fortunate to have you in the ninth circuit. one article in particular, rethinking constitutional welfare rights is a subject of controversy. and you wrote that fundamental rights can layout over time. can you layout what judiciary has of rights over time? >> certainly, that article was an article in two parts. the first half is voted to rejecting the idea that courts have any role in venting rights in the social and economic realm. and that's consistent with the instructions of the supreme

court in this area, and where it says that these are liberties that we apply in this process. the back-half of the article recognizes a judicial role in interpreting rights by statute. this is a difference that much of the article is directed at the note that policy makers are really the ones in charge when it comes to this contested area. and what courts do, on occasion, on limited occasion, they assess the legislatures, they assess eligibility requirements or termination procedures against the due process clause, and that is supported and remains on the books. and the role is in the state of the law as it is today and i

feel prepared to follow that law if appointed as a judge. >> can you explain this is limited to the role of the legislative role? >> absolutely, my scholarship has been devoted to the subject of public education, as you know. and in another article in the journal of 2006, i wrote another piece that was about education. but directed again at the legislature, the policy makers, with the important caveats in the front of the article, saying i am not contemplates any judicial role. and i acknowledged that the supreme court's decision in the rodriguez case was very much informed by principles of judicial restraint.

was the basic approach i took in that article, in some instances no capacity or authority to weigh in political decisions. so much of my writing has been centered on those approaches. >> if i can ask something that is a subject of debate, what role does foreign law play in interpretation of u.s. law, what sort of authority? >> the answer is none. the foreign law has no authority in our society, unless american law requires it to have authority. in a case of a contract or treaty of some sort. to clarify that issue. there is one paragraph of writing in my record that acknowledges that solutions for legal problems might come from other places in the world when

they are common problems that constitutional democracies face. but all i meant by saying that, in the same way that judges look to treatises and law articles and they may look to other nations too. but there is a distinction of that kind of information gathering. and the use of those sources as .

>> i think that article 3, section 2 contains an absolute requirement that judges decide only cases and they do not render advisory opinions. that is fairly explicit in the text of the constitution. >> determine quarter due in terms of your statement -- the chairman " to do in terms of

your statement and your statement has caused difficulty is the following -- the resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp. these are your words. if you haven't absolute fidelity to the law and the language in the statute, how could anyone ever consider for a lot as a basis for a decision? >> the supreme court's in this area has largely followed the general approach that they look to form what merely as confirmatory or ideas about how to approach a particular problem. i did not read that as dictating that those sources have authority in a sense of legal

controlling and binding authority in the interpretation of u.s. law. it is not my view that foreign law has that. >> justice stevens -- it tends to weaken the submission of the right to possess a gun. do you believe that there is merit to this argument? he is now referencing for a lot in his defense of his position on that case. is that the fidelity? is this precise? >> he was in defense in that case. i would have followed the majority view. >> again, we have the supreme court justice who is relying on foreign law. it is very clear to want to know

exactly where you are given the statement that you said, it is difficult for you to grasp that people would have trouble with the utilization of foreign law. >> even been -- there is no sense in which the examples he gave -- i do not have a view of the merits of how he used as examples -- my point is that i do not think that even hint at his opinion, he is citing those sources. that opinion was a dissent. i would follow the holding of the supreme court, but one would have to follow the reasoning of the case. >> i submitted two rounds of questions to you falling our other hearing. on many, you fail to give me an

answer. i will run out of time and i will run out of time to be able to do that, so i look forward to meeting with you in my office to get those answers. you have said today that you would not have included the last paragraph in your critique. is that a case of poor judgment? do you think? or is it a case of lack of knowledge and insight? >> it was poor judgment. >> i have seven seconds left and a multitude of questions. >> thank you for meeting with him, it is very much appreciated. senator blue and fall? >> -- blumenthal?

>> i want to commend you for the success so far in your career, a great american success story going to public school and sacramento, then to stanford, oxford, to the yale law school and many years of teaching. before answering the questions today, difficult questions. you have expressed regret for some of the comments that you made. i think that you are entitled to an up or down vote by the united states senate, but i also feel that this britney has been fair,

searching and demanding, but i believe that this body has a responsibility to ask the kinds of questions that you have been passed and i hope that you agree that the process is a fair one in that regard. i want to go to what i consider to be the central question for any judge. where you would follow and what he would follow if your personal views conflict with the rulings and decisions of the united states supreme court. is there any doubt in your mind that you would follow faithfully and consistently the rulings and decisions of the united states supreme court? >> there is no doubt in my mind about that.

the approach that i have taken in my writings has been fairly consistent to the knowledge of what the state of the law actually is. scholars are paid to critique it and to set other things about it, but it always begins with a clear acknowledgment of what the law is. that is what i would follow. >> on the question of school choice and busing, you have taken some stand bad would indicate your support for a broadbased school choice initiative under some circumstances, and we may disagree about it -- i am not sure that we do. even if we did, there is no question in your mind that he would follow the rulings of the united states records -- the united states supreme court? >> absolutely i would.

>> it the united states supreme court were unclear -- and he may have used the words incoherent -- what would be your approach? would you also look to what the combination of precedents and tried to make the best sense of it? >> that is exactly what one would do and what one would have to do in the role of an appellate judge. >> i know that one of the criticisms that i have seen, having reviewed your previous testimony, has related to racial quotas. you support racial " this with no foreseeable end point. do you support wrote -- do you support racial quotas, have you ever supported them?

>> i absolutely do not, senator. >> do you think that affirmative action plans should exist forever? >> affirmative action, as it was originally conceived, that was the appropriate way to understand what it is. >> my time has expired, i may have some additional questions. i want to thank you for your testimony and i am greatly impressed by it. >> senator sessions? >> thank you. we do not have time to go into the kind of discussions we would all like to. it is difficult for us to get prepared as we would like. we do a pretty good job all in all. you have gone through this before. you've had no real experience practicing law or as a judge,

only two years in private practice are doing one case on appeal, but never having tried a case before a jury. you have -- i do believe that is a serious defect -- a serious lack, and the judge that goes on a court one step below the supreme court. that is a serious matter. it is something that i have to wait and my judgment as to whether or not you should be on the court. secondly, from your writing, and i have been on this committee 14 years, i consider them to be the most advanced statements of the active list judicial philosophy that i have seen. there is not anyone close to

that. it is a little bit a demonstration of some lack of sensitivity deep, practical legal experience, that you have no difficulty in talking around the direct contradictions in your riding and the positions that you are taking on some of the questions. there are very clear distinctions. i do not think they are easily breached. with regard to the foreign law question, you suggest that yours is not an unusual view. i would suggest that it is clearly, from the statements that -- it is on the court with the most aggressive foreign law citation theories. in your yale law 2006, you

wrote, before the 14th amendment mandates equal protection, it guarantees natural citizenship. this guaranteed is affirmative in its clarity. the guaranteed dulles more than designate a legal status, -- the guaranteed does more than designate a legal status. this obligation accompanies a legislative vehicle to ensure that all children have adequate educational opportunities for citizenship. the constitutional guarantee of a national -- natural sufficient -- natural citizenship has never realize its potential to be a source of substantive --

the words are pretty plain. you become a citizen of the united states. it takes that quite a bit further and it says that a judge can begin to evaluate political, social policy that you discussed in your article and begin to make decisions on those. you are talking about substantive of rights to be found in the document itself. judges can act upon that. i would ask you to respond to that. don't you think that is an untaught the ring and judged from -- tethering a judge from the constraints of the constitution? >> i will try to address this.

the article says absolutely nothing about what a judge should do. the article is an address to policy-makers and there is not a single sentence that says that judges should use that language as a dinner to a source of rights. secondly, the article and not -- >> prue would find -- and you would find a source of substantive rights? legislators do not have to use the citizenship clause. >> my argument and the article is merely that the legislature, members of congress, may. >> the constitutional provision provides come at a potential source of substantive rights, and i think that is clearly directed to the courts. >> that is not my view. the article in the very

beginning explains that i avoid using the language of rights precisely because rights connote judicial enforceability, which is something that i am not interested in in that article. it is a bit hard for me to respond to -- you mentioned there were contradictions. it is hard for me to respond to that in the abstract. >> i have to vote, we go through this. i have to evaluate what i am hearing. i would suggest to you that a number of contradictions in your written statement and your testimony and written answers to the committee's questions. i do not think they are adequately addressed. >> it is hard for me to respond

without knowing what contradictions you have in mind. in terms of the doubt in my experience, i acknowledge that you are correct. it is true that my resume is primarily a scholarly resume. i spent a couple of years in practice. it is limited. i do think, though, the fiber and other strings to the role of an appellate judge. the role of a scholar has always been one of rigorous inquiry and the consideration of arguments and counter argument on the ability to listen well to all the different sides. in terms of how i would approach the role, knowing that i have some gaps in my experience, i take some instruction of my own experience having clerk born appellate judge who was not on the district court before. one thing that he always did, he

always read the record of the case very carefully. the temptation that the appellate level because the issues are cleaned up and eat, is to decide them as abstract matters of law. look at the record, look at the record because it is important to understand how a case came up the line to the appeals process. i would adopt the same approach if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed. >> in that same article, you say it was directed only to policymakers. in your words -- the article was an attempt, a small step toward reformation of thought on how well their rights might be

recognized through constitutional adjudication. >> there are two different articles in questions. the coach that you are now reading is from a 2008 stanford law review article. in that article, there is not any reference made to a judicial role. >> it is. a potential source to generate substantive rights. that can only mean by a judge. the legislature cannot act on these matters. i am over my time. thank you. >> note to the generosity of the chairman. >> you were very kind. >> you're welcome. advocates.

i will always respect your insight. >> i wish it did some good. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. let me go back to the statements that were referred to earlier that were the subjects of your commentary about -- earlier. i think it tells people understand both what you said and why there is concern about it. you said, his record where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away from a stolen purse. were federal agents may point guns aren't ordinary citizens, even after no sign of resistance. or the fbi may install a camera where you sleep on the promise backed -- a promise that it will

not turn off unless an informant is in the room. i sent multiple regression analysis showing discrimination. where police may search was a warrant permits, this is some. this is not the america we know, nor the america that we aspire to be. did i read that correctly? >> you did, senator. >> professor, this is the second time that you love that a nomination hearing before this committee. last time, it was april 6, 2010. >> i cannot remember the exact date. >> d.o. why your nomination was

never called on the floor of the senate? >> senator, i have read various accounts of it, but i have no direct knowledge. >> under the senate rules, the only person who could do this was the majority leader. >> i think i am aware of that, yes. >> have you had a conversation with him orthostats about why he did not call your nomination? >> no, not on that subject. >> it is a mystery to you as to why you are having to go through this twice. >> senator, i would not say mystery. i read some press accounts of how the decisions were determined. one cannot always trust press

accounts, but i do have some ideas about it. >> you were denied a vote on your nomination last congress. correct? >> i was. >> the only one who could have scheduled that would be the majority leader. >> i believe that is true, yes. >> in talking about chief justice john roberts nomination, you said, there is no doubt that roberts has a legal mind, a brilliant legal mind. a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect. is that correct "? >> yes. >> you would agree that that should apply to you as well? >> absolutely, senator. the advice and consent process is in the constitution because it is one of the checks and balances. before any judge can sit at the bench, there ought to be a political check on that process. yes, i do agree.

>> professor, the difficulty that you are encountering with some of the members of the committee, because you have such a comprehensive set of legal writings expressing opinions on everything from the death penalty to same-sex marriage, to what constitutes welfare rights protected by the u.s. constitution and the like, you are now saying that wiped the slate clean because none of that has any relevance whatsoever to how i would conduct myself as a judge if confirmed by the senate. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. to follow the instruction of the higher court, which is the united states supreme court, as well as i should add circuit president. i am very comfortable saying to you, my scholarly views are not

the ground on which i would base decisions. you mentioned what i wrote about the roberts nomination. it is a different case with respect to the supreme court. there, the justices may overturn president. that is simply -- president -- precedent. >> i believe i said at your last hearing, i believe you have led a remarkable life and you've accomplished a lot. you have a beautiful and supportive family. you have a lot to be grateful for, and i know you are. that does not mean that you are qualified to serve as a member of the federal judiciary. in fact, your writings and your previous testimony and

statements raise some serious questions about whether this -- whether you have the temperaments and the ability to set aside your strongly held academic and scholarly views and to be able to start over from scratch and ignore them. the problem we have is that we have five-minute rounds to ask you questions. we follow it up with written questions, and you have answered most of those, i believe. the difficulty is that we know this kabuki theater, where nominees come into the hearing room and they profess a nomination conversion. there previously strongly held views are inoperative and we

should not pay any attention to them, and we should take out your words your ability. we need to know whether you have the ability to do as you say you would do and said all this aside. -- sacked all of this aside. we have had the sad experience where people come in and they say, the sorts of things that you were saying today, about how they would conduct themselves, but in practice, they had either been unable or unwilling to keep that promise. dissident hot -- the senate has no recourse whatsoever, short of impeachment. i want to explain to you my

candid be used. i think you have accomplished a lot in your life, you have a lot to be grateful for and proud of. but i am not convinced that this is the right job for you. with that -- >> thank you very much. i would like to place in the record the statement the board chairman. he, too, refers to the confirmation of professor mcconnell. his own provocative writings included staunch advocacy for re-examining the first amendment exercise clause, the establishment clause, a jurisprudence, strong opposition to roe v wade and to the clinic access law bread he testified before congress that he believed

that the violence against women act was unconstitutional. his writings and the actions in acquiting abortion protesters could not be read as anything other than fray. he was confirmed. members on this side gave them the benefit of the doubt. >> i appreciate that. i did not a speech -- i do not dispute anything that you've said. there is no recourse for the committee or the senate is voting to confirm a nominee who does not do what they promise to do. that is the quandary we find ourselves in. >> i do not want to have a back- and-forth, he has said that he

won't. -- would. >> we have had the experience of the supreme court justice said it was an individual right. and did subsequently wrote a decision on the court where it -- that this about the very individual right that she claimed existed under the second amendment. that is my only point. i am not disputing that the professor might have those aspirations. he may be making a good faith representation about his intentions. i am just saying that you cannot ignore a body of legal scholarship expressing the strongly held views about this and just take for granted that someone will be able to completely ignore that in approaching their job as a judge.

that is my only point. thank you. >> i will continue this conversation sometime i. >> welcome back. i think this is your second hearing. i remember talking with you then. you of that to hearings now and you've made herself available to members for whatever questions you had. is that right? >> i appreciate you making yourself so available. i think you are more than qualified to do this job based on your background. their willingness to follow the

law. i want to go back into what you were saying. he was just talking about the the difference of your work as a scholar. i mentioned before the i'm a graduate of the university of chicago law school and have seen i've often thought that some of the things that they said or view is that they expressed were not necessarily what guided them as a judge. could you talk a little bit about your view of a judge differing from the role of an advocate or scholar? >> thank you. i want to express that i appreciate him making his concerns transparent and plane. they are fair concerns to raise and discuss. this is a robust and fair

process, and it enables me an opportunity to clarify that in all of my academic writings, the role that i had was that of a commentator. what is color does is pokes and prods and critiques -- what a scholar does is poke and prague and critique. that is why scholarship comes out the way that it does not coat it comes out as critical and provocative. those are the qualities that are reported in that profession. the role of a judge is very different. the role of a judge is fundamentally one of being unfaithful to law as it is. i think i recognize that difference in the way that i approached scholarship. i understand what a lot

dispersed without grasping that essential foundation, one cannot responsibly comment on it. right? if i am able to take my hat off and put this different hats on, the role simply changes and the nature of how you approach cases changes. is not -- in a judge that has been an academic -- before deciding the case. they read the briefs and they read the record of the case and they confine themselves, they discipline themselves with that process because that is the process of judging. that is how i understand that difference. >> there's been a lot of comment about right things and taking certain things that you have said to try to demonstrate what people think might be your judicial philosophy. do you want to describe what

your additional loss of the is? >> sure. in a nutshell, the courts of the united states had a very limited role in our system of government. it is limited to -- is limited because the members hold tenure without the electoral accountability. because we are a fundamentally a democratic system, that is a role to be exercised very cautiously. it is also a very important role because the judiciary is also an important bulwark against the tyranny of a majority. we have protections in the constitution's for various individual rights. they are insulated from the politics of the moment.

it is a careful balancing act at all times. in approaching the cases that would come before me, i would take my instruction from the united states supreme court, and i think the court has balanced those two important product test. -- rather desperate the limitations, and the importance of bork against tyranny. >> thank you. i wondered -- i will be heading up the court committee and senator sessions is the ranking republican. what do you see is the greatest challenge facing the federal judiciary right now. >> i feel like it would be presumptuous of me to comment on that question having not made it

to the job yet. >> trying really hard, though, you must have some thoughts. >> i do not have more thoughts on this than any layperson might have. i have paid attention because of my own involvement. i had observed many claims made about the crushing caseloads that have affected not just the ninth circuit, but many of the circuit around the country. that attest to the importance of this process and some of the challenges that he will face in the years to come. >> thank you very much. i think about myself as a student in law school and somehow they got through this committee and they got to the senate. i hope that the same will happen with you, professor. you have great credentials,

thank you. >> that concludes our first round. i would like to put some letters into the record, which i will do it. i understand that senator sessions that -- has some questions. this is actually your third round. [inaudible] he has to come back, or i'm going to move on. why don't you go ahead? >> [inaudible] again, i am a bit baffled. you talked just a moment ago about judges showing restraint, that they are cautious, and a limited role, but i improperly quoted this article a while ago and you corrected me. right.

this is an article on rethinking constitutional welfare, you talked about -- this is you're writing about how you think judges should perform. the historical development demand a more complex explanation than the conventional account of the court as an independent, socially detached, decisionmaker that say what the law is. the enduring task of the judiciary, you say, in is to find a way to articulate constitutional law that the nation can accept as its own. first, the decision had the famous line.

a judge's role is to say what block the law is. you go quite a bit further. you give a statement about the role of a judge. what you just said? >> that is the first time i have been accused of channeling the justice. >> that is a pretty good statement. it is not consistent. >> i do not -- i would be happy to look at that passage carefully. i think the passage was trying to say that judges cannot decide cases, whether it is in this area or any other area, on the basis of some independent moral theory that they have about people are entitled to.

if anything. that statement is part of an argument that says that what judges have to do is set aside their independent moral theories and not purport them into the law. the supreme court has been clear in this particular area that there is that danger that judges might try to write that into the law. i fully respect -- >> on the question of privacy, you said, well, privacy is what society says it is. how do you define that? you look at what sources you can. when you get away from respecting the limitations of the constitution and its

language, then you get into binding theories. do you do polling data to determine? do we look to foreign law? you said you look to for a lot to get -- it is our constitution that you are interpreting. the one that we adopt, not some foreign law. indicate that your view is that a judge in dade is free to every interpret the meaning of the words of the constitution and to advance what they consider to be some societal values? it is done ascertainable by a judge in a complete way. >> on the fourth amendment example, i was not giving my personal view about the

subjects. i was trying to express what the supreme court itself has said about the subject. if i were an intermediate appellate judge, i would have to follow the standard of reasonable expectation, privacy as society recognizes it, which is the applicable standard. >> i appreciate the opportunity to have this exchange. i would say that i believed that the values that you expressed in your writings indicate that you have a very active at a deep -- activist view of role of a judge. i think it would influence your decision making.

the ninth circuit was considered a road circuit. i am concerned about that, and i have no doubt of your good will, your skill, your leadership, your academic ability. you have a wonderful family. >> thank you. >> i know we have additional questions. did you have additional questions for this witness? >> i do not, madam chairman. >> the fine. i know we are keeping the other nominee for quite a time, but we will try to be quick. you have probably seen that this is a very interesting hearing for this particular candidate. >> [inaudible]

it criticized some of his writings and irresponsible effectively to this criticism. >> that was quick. [inaudible] >> thank you. if we were to wipe the slate clean as to your economic writings and cover your, what is left to justify your confirmation? >> i would hope that you would not wipe my slate clean as it were. i am what i am, my resonates -- my resume is a scholarly resume. i appreciate the distinction between the roles. i think there are important facets of being a scholar that are very important to being a judge. the ability to have a knowledge of the law, the ability to have

-- to see arguments and to be fair. and also the ability to listen while to the positions and subject all the arguments to the most rigorous scrutiny. all those are transferable skills. what is not transferable are the substantive views that one might take as a matter of legal theory. those are left out the door of. -- those are left out the door of. >> you devotes an entire chapter to defending the supreme court's holdings in cases like roe v wade and lawrence. you describe these cases collectively as "brought constellations of cases extending constitutional protection to decision making" -- you argue the rights of firms

and the cases enjoy widespread support and acceptance, they cannot be reconciled that asks how befriending generation would have resolved these issues. they are wholly consistent with an approach to constitutional interpretation. the evolution of constitutional protection for individual autonomy in search and areas of and demand decisionmaking reflect the form of constitutional interpretation that this book in visions -- envisions." given that you argue these cases, is it fair to say that

these cases demonstrate fidelity to the constitution under york judicial loss of the? >> those are cases that have been rendered by the united states supreme court. if i were confirmed, i would fully followed them. i do not think there is -- bit -- it is one scholarly description of a set of cases. i am sure there are scholars that would disagree. however we might like to characterize those opinions is a matter of. . the decisions speak for themselves in their own language and any judge would have to consult those decisions themselves in applying the law to the facts of one particular case. >> i your prior hearing, you

responded to a question by saying, lawrence is a case in which the supreme court relied simply because it was favorable to the majority opinions. in doing so, did the court reads contemporary social context together? >> i am not sure that i understand the question. >> well, i can state it again. we're trying to compare what you said about original commitment and contemporary social context. the lawrence decision relies upon foreign law was favorable to the majority opinions, how that fits in with your quote.

>> the supreme court was interpreting the term liberty of the 14th amendment. interpreting that term, the court looked to a variety of sources. the primary discussion is a discussion of how the notion of liberty had traveled through a variety from the time of the early 1900's all the way up to the present-day. with respect to the citation of foreign law, there are reasons to be skeptical as well about the use of foreign law because one has to know whether or not jury picking among the possible sources. that was the caution that i

expressed the first time we had this conversation. >> this will be my last question. we had a host of liberal academics admitting that the role was largely invented. "one of the most curious things about roe v. wade is that behind its smokescreen, the substantive that judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." in 1985, "heavyhanded judicial intervention that was difficult to justify." "as law professor said, constitutional argument, it is barely coherent."

a former law clerk, "as a matter of constitutional interpretation, it even the most liberal, if you added minister truth serum will tell you that it is basically indefensible." we could go on and on it. the boat -- do still believe that it demonstrates what he termed constitutional fidelity? >> it is a precedent of the courts and it has been reaffirmed as recently as 1992. it is entitled to the respect of the supreme court. if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed, that means that roe v. wade is a controlling case. >> you are saying that it demonstrates what you --

demonstrate constitutional fidelity? >> the supreme court has said that it is inappropriate to -- and on the appropriate decision under the constitution. i am obligated to respect that. >> i know this is tough, and i to thank you. thank you for your bright mind, thank you for your scholastic intuition and judgment and knowledge. i thought the answer to the last question show that you also have courage of your views and i thank you for that. i think you will be fine if you get there. i think you'll be a fine appellate court judge, and i think this is really hard. you see the polarization that exists. whether we can overcome it or not, i do not know. i hope that members will meet with you separate the. i was delighted that senator

cockburn agree to do so and that means a great deal to me. one of my concerns is that our federal judiciary is made up of the best we can get. the intellectual and legal giants of our time. and that we not dumb it down. thank you very much for being here. you are now excused. >> thank you. >> that was goodwin liu's confirmation hearing for march 2. he was back on capitol hill today. the senate gavels in it tomorrow at 10:00 tomorrow morning. if confirmed, he would be the only asian-american on the ninth circuit court. we spoke with a capitol hill

reporter today on a preview. >> phyllis is -- who is goodwin liu? >> he is a relatively young law professor from california. he is 40. he is someone that has an american story, where he is the son of immigrants. he grew up and went to some of the best schools in the country. he is considered controversial because republicans think that he would be among the most liberal judges on the federal appeals court if he were confirmed. he might be a future supreme court nominee himself for a democratic president. the stakes are pretty high for

his nomination. >> when he was first nominated, how far did his nomination get? did it make it to the senate floor? >> it did not get a vote on the senate floor. he was first nominated back in february of 2010 at. he has been waiting a little longer than a year. that is a long time for the most nominees. he went through the committee several times. he never came up for a vote on the senate floor last year. democrats were busy with health care legislation, among other priorities, and i almost brought his nomination up at the end of the year. at the last minute, they did not. >> his republican opponents think he would be among the most liberal judges appointed. how do this supporters respond to that? >> they think he is within the

mainstream. some of his writings have pointed out the benefits of school vouchers, which is not an issue that is dear to the heart of most liberals. they say that -- but they point to his testimony at his confirmation hearing marie talked about -- where he talked about putting aside his writings. part of the issue is not just his academic writings, but his advocacy work. he was on the board of the american constitution society, a networking group for a liberal lawyers. he was chairman of the boards. that put him in a position to be a spokesman for the legal wing of democratic party. >> take a look ahead of what might come up and the senate not aware -- why did harry reid

consider bringing it up again? it did not get a vote the last time, and he has been waiting since february. has anything changed? >> there was a vote two weeks ago on another judge who republicans also wanted to filibuster. that the judge was a district court judge in rhode island who made it through. he survived the filibuster. their votes are there for goodwin liu to survive this test. he needs 60 votes. everyone says that it is going to be close. there are some republicans this certainly will not filibuster him, even if they did not support his nomination. are there enough of those republicans will not vote to block him and the way that some democrats blocked nominees of

george w. bush? >> david in grump -- ingram, thank you for that update. >> thursday, on "washington journal," tom davis talks about the current gop presidential field. the consumer product safety commission on the top safety initiatives and programs. assesses -- discusses border security issues. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. tonight, a news briefing the defense secretary robert gates. a debate between the candidates for the special congressional election and the 26 district of new york. new york.