no. 3, have regulations that are fair and predictable so business owners what -- know what to expect from one-quarter to the next. and number four -- reform the legal system so frivolous lawsuits don't paralyzed in the camp -- do not paralyze the employers who are trying to create what real wealth. that is what we have done. over the last 10 years we have followed that the simple recipe. we have stopped lawsuit abuse, we have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. and we keep adding jobs while others are losing them left and right. those jobs fully other states because of factors like excessive taxation, punitive regulation, frivolous lawsuits. to preserve our job-friendly

climate, the texas legislature did not raise taxes this last legislative session while balancing their budgets and maintaining essentials services. i might add, that a new budget leaves $6 billion and a rainy day fund -- that new budget leaves $6 billion in a rainy day fund. in texas, we truly believe that you can't defer tough decisions for tomorrow's generation. unlike washington, we don't have some foreign creditors to finance deficit spending, either. [applause] last month, texas and made sure that frivolous lawsuits had even less chance of strangling job creation as we passed loser pay lawsuit reform in this state

of texas. [applause] and to make sure that votes are never canceled out by illegal votes, we instituted a photo id requirement for every voter. [applause] you see, when it comes to voting, one of the most precious and powerful freedoms that we have, it is precious to us. and don't you think it is fair to apply at least is the same standard required to get a library card were to board an airplane -- or to board an

airplane? our legislators also protect the sanctity of life with a bill that requires a sonogram on those contemplating abortion. [applause] think about this for just a second. when the liberals talk about protecting our most vulnerable populations -- i don't understand why they won't include of the most vulnerable, those innocent unborn children. when it comes to conservative social issues, it saddens me when sometimes my fellow republicans duck and cover and the face of pressure from the left. and i am reminded -- i am reminded of what president ronald reagan said cpac in 1977.

i want to quote him for you prior to him winning the presidency, of course. he said -- the time has come for us to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called social issues and those interested in the economic issues. in short, isn't it possible to combine the two major issues, those two major segments of contemporary american conservatism into one publicly affected whole? i believe the answer is yes." mr. president, i agree with you. the answer is most definitely yes and we need to stop apologizing for celebrating life. we need to stop apologizing for

wanting to protect and individual's right to build a business. we want -- need to stop apologizing about stemming the tide of entitlement mindset that is out there. [applause] we ought to be proud of our efforts to give local parents and communities a say on how their children are educated, protecting that fundamental right of private property ownership. our party cannot be all things to all people. it can be. and are allowed us opponents on the left are never going to like us so let's quit trying to curry favor with them. [applause]

let stand up. let us speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our efforts to enact a more conservative republicans. let's stop this american downward spiral. we are doing this and it is happening because of too much spending, too much interfering and too much apologizing. [applause] in my mind, there have always been two kinds of politicians -- those who seek office to gain personal power and those who seek office to give power back to the people. in state houses across this country and in the united states congress, conservative politicians, conservative

leaders, all working to return power to the people -- turning back the tide of this unchecked spending and unbridled and of parents in state affairs. let me share something that is not a secret -- they will never willingly give up an ounce of power in washington, d.c., until the american people stand up and demand that we adopt reform. never will they do that. [applause] this administration may get up and now word about job creation -- mouth words about job creation but they clearly consider enterprise a dirty word. and they think the future of our labor needs to be spread

around or, a word i like to use from their ideology, be read distributed. this enlists overreaching by the federal government is what motivated me to write the book "fed up" last year. it is a discussion centered around the 10th commandment -- 10th amendment and a key phrase, powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited -- prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. it is simple. it is elegant. and it is to the point. the framers of our constitution know all too well what happens when a distant, too-powerful government holds sway over a nation. that is why they decentralize

power out of washington, d.c., into the hands of the states. when states lead the way and they compete for ideas and resources and jobs, free-market principles are allowed to act and great things happen. the states are proof that the best leadership is closest to the people, not hold up in washington, d.c., issuing these one size fits all mandates that try to fit the entire country. [applause] our goal is to displace the entrenched powers in washington, restore the rightful balance between state and federal governments. reaching your pocket right now. take your phone out. it is ok. i just want you to take your phone out for a second and i want you to do something with

me. if you really believe in what we are talking about, if this whole concept of restoring the balance back to our country, decentralizing out of watching, d.c., and what you to text to 95613, but the word for an end text it. go ahead, i will wait. listen, and we are going to keep you apprised of what we are doing. we will keep you informed about our efforts to restore that crucial balance between the states and washington and get america moving forward into the rightful role that our founding fathers knew would work. in november of 2008, there were too many americans who voted for some vague promises about hope

and change. and they ended up with unprecedented deficits, unrestrained spending and unacceptable unemployment. americans voted for hold and got nothing but a greater economic misery -- voted for hope and that nothing but greater economic misery. in november 2010 americans express their frustration and they voted for conservative republicans. in the united states congress and statehouses across the country we have seen republican leaders turning the tide. november 2012 is not very far away. [applause] to we've got to be ready elect republican leaders up and down that balance who will make government smaller so that opportunity can get bigger. i am preaching to the choir, i understand that. but america's greatness is not found in the size of its

government. america's greatness reside in the hearts and minds of our people. innovative approaches to solving problems and their ability to endure even in the toughest of times. if we want to stimulate the economy, we don't need more government spending. we need to unleash the private sector in america, the individual citizens who put their hours in at the job, who pay their taxes, doing the best to take care of their families. the good news is, we got the wind at our back right now. as americans are waking up to the realities of their previous choice, they are setting things right with their vote. the challenges facing state leaders as we pursue these balanced budgets across the country. let me share with you -- they are going to pale in comparison to what we are going to see in

2014 when that runaway train known as obamacare hit our budgets. if congress or the courts don't derail obamacare, state budgets will crumble over the massive financial budget -- burden. the republican majority in the house of representatives is starting to slow the train now but we need to keep sending reinforcements to bring that effort to a clear conclusion. [applause] to get their we must keep america moving back to pre- eminence because our values and conservative ideas are the world's greatest hope. like you, i still believe ameritech is special -- america is special. i see a strong america built on the solid foundation of spiritual strength, individual liberty and self-determination. we must recapture that vision

and begin the hard work of leading the way to millions of americans adrift in the sea of economic misery. let us leave them to the safe harbor of american renewal and the shores of american exceptional is some -- exceptionalism. let us encourage them in the future of good jobs and the country founded on great ideals, restore the notion of a government of the people, for the people, by the people. if we don't do it, who will? if not now, when? there is no greater goal, no more crucial time than right now to take and make our stand to restore our economy, our families, our country, and i happen to know that we can and i know that you will. god bless you and thank you all for being out here today and got less of the united states of america -- god bless the united

states of america. [applause] [crowd chanting] >> thank you, thank you. [crowd chanting perry 2012] >> wrecked, we love you. you gotta run.

-- rick, we love you. >> c-span has launched a new, easy to navigate web site for politics in the 2012 election race. but the latest c-span events from the campaign trail, bio information on the candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. this us at c-span.org/campaign 2012 -- visit us. >> former white house and congressional officials will discuss today the system of checks and balances in government. live coverage at 2:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight on "the communicators" former fcc chairman michael powell who is now head of the national cable and telecommunications association who talks about telecom issues and his transition from government to head the cable industry association. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-

span2. former u.s. ambassador to china jon huntsman announces his run for republican presidential nomination, morning. live coverage at 10:00 eastern. he is also a former governor of utah. he is making the announcement of the same place, reagan announced his provincial -- presidential campaign. >> mr. president, thank you very much. i feel deeply nominated to be nominated to become the 20 the director of the central intelligence agency. >> with his senate confirmation hearings scheduled thursday, learn more about general david petreaus in his more than 50 appearances on line at the c- span video library. with more than 115,000 people and every c-span program since 1987, all searchable and free. it is washington your way. >> for the next couple of hours we are showing a number of the speakers from the recent republican leadership conference in louisiana. next, former louisiana gov.

buddy roemer running for the republican presidential nomination. at the confidence of a week and he talked about his plans for the country for about 40 minutes. >> thank you. welcome to louisiana, those of you who are visiting. when our nation began, it was separated by thousands of miles of the atlantic ocean -- from the shores of the king. in many ways, because of the distance and the benevolence of the monarchs, constituent backgrounds of the colonists, and these colonies were already the freest place on earth. but the fear grew that the

monarchs would turn it increasingly heavy-handed. and that taxation without representation would become the rule. the tyranny of the king would rule land, so we decided to claim ourselves governing freedom. it wasn't one act by either side that it did. but it happened over time. we are maybe the only nation that revolted not to gain freedom, but to maintain it. that is how deep it runs in america. unlike the french or the russians, we were already free, but we wanted the teary need to know that it was a gift of god, and not of the king.

as board would point out in a recent wonderful book, it was -- borden woods pointed out in a book, it was the idea that we had an amiable rights and did not depend on the benevolence of the king or a tyrant or a dictator or and army to maintain those rights. we knew that dependence on the benevolence of a central authority would lead ultimately to tyranny, tyranny -- actions to benefit the few, not the many. the idea of america is that we are at risk of tyranny even when we are free. and it was this idea that caused the revolution. the idea that built the nation. not an event, an idea.

today, 200 years later, we are run by the tyranny of the special interests, and their checkbooks. [applause] lobbyist money, pac money, bundle money corporate money, association money, special interest money. think about it. think about the idea of it. i refer you to a tax code that is unreadable, with loopholes for the rich and famous, favors for corporations, that send our best jobs overseas and where deepen the can make a profit last year of $14.2 billion worldwide and pay not one penny of federal income taxes. and you know what? they gave $4.3 million in

political contributions to candidates for president four years ago. corporations never made more profit than they did this year. how do you feel? half of this nation was brought to its knees in the last -- after this nation was brought to its knees in the last recession by the wall street banks and other companies who received trillions of dollars in taxpayer bailout and credit enhancement money without a single thank you in return -- did you get your thank you? i refer you to a bank reform bill that allows too big to fail to remain, that did not address the capital ratio, increasing the size of the banks, that didn't restore the provisions of glass-steagall and acted like wall street banks are making america great again -- the great robbery. i wonder how this happened?

at the age of 67, the guy who built a billion dollars of banks that did not take one penny of bailout money -- i wonder how it happened? could it be that the financial sector and wall street where the largest political check writers in the nation last i heard -- cycle? could it be that goldman sachs was the single largest financial contributor at $3.4 million and that no one went to jot -- jailed for fraud, lying, or for the big scam? could it be? [applause] i won't talk about the money given by the insurance companies. or the tort lawyers or the pharmaceutical companies. there are some giants. that gave us a health care reform bill that it did nothing

to know where the cost of government care. they. cap tort claims, did not require income -- insurance companies to compete across state lines, they did not open it up for competition or to lower their price for volume or competition from canada. these were the monopoly protectors in the bill. i don't have to remind you of the subsidies and special favors and a federal operating budget that is so out of balance that the national debt will double from its current historic high in the next eight years, and so full of gimmicks and mystical and rosy assumptions that i believe that that even horrible picture is understated. ok, so our political leadership -- democrat and republican -- beside to subsidize ethanol,

oil, $100 a barrel. gas, and proven energy technology, housing, fannie mae and freddie mac and on and on and on -- follow the money. d.c. is rigged. they don't read the bills. they don't have time to. they're raising money. [applause] they are working lobbyist jobs upon retirement from the very companies buying favors before the committee. this is institutional corruption. it is. -- tyranny. let me tell you something you didn't know. because you knew all of that. let me tell you something you didn't know.

in the last political cycle for president, more money was contributed from the washington, d.c., area than from 32 states combined. the working poor and the middle class americans don't give. 99% of the citizens don't give th. political giving has mushroomed into a casino for favors from the special interest who live off of the government. the party is the throne by those who need the government contracts or hidden favors or secret conferences or caucus deals. 1% of the people give the money and they want favor, access, help, a realse. i am the only person running for

president who has been both a congressman and a governor. wow. [applause] i have seen the rigged money game grow and grow and grow. and although i specialize in beating incumbent democrats for congress and for governor on the issue of corruption and special interest, i have never seen anything like the tyranny that walks our lands, the tyranny of the special interests alive in america today. we didn't get here by accident. the president refuses to lead because he is busy running to wall street for a fund raiser at $35,000 a ticket. or running to houston for the big oil money.

the man of change you can count on it is raising it billion dollars from the special interests. now, that's changed. -- that's changed. it used to be only too rigid and 50 million. you thought it was the poor who rode the tax code? you thought it was the middle class who busted the budget? you thought it was a bow working people who sent our jobs overseas while we taxpayers paid for it? america is in trouble and we can do better, folks. we must be bold. we owe more money than any nation on earth ever has. who cares, you ask. it is just the debt. abraham lincoln, the greatest republican said it -- i am going

to quote him. "excessive debt shrinks a nation. could you feel like being shrunk? president jefferson buys the louisiana purchase for pennies an acre from a napoleon who was broke and needed to finance another war. excessive debt shrinks a nation. america doubled and france disappeared from the new world. wow. america is in trouble. we can do better. we must be bold. we spend without discipline. and in the last two years, without a budget. to hit the sweet spot for growth and to begin to get the deck in control, we must discipline spending and totally reformed

the tax code. that is the easy part. we spend $300 billion a month and we borrow 120 billion of it from our competitors. nice move, america. we must reduce spending to get spending down to 18.5% of gdp. and enhance job growth. we can do it by reducing spending. $140 billion a year for five years, that is 1% a year of the gdp. i have identified six broad areas of reduction targets -- from 50 billion to $150 billion. everything is on the table. entitlements are a special concern because of their tremendous growth rate over the past 20 years. and the fact that they comprise such a huge part of the debt. medicare alone is 26% of the

budget. destroyedts won't be or eliminated. but certain actions are required to preserve their financial integrity. on social security, i would change the retirement age gradually over time. one month a year for 24 years. i would bring the new retirement in line with the ages and would not raise any taxes or lower any benefits for so security. one month a year for 24 years. on medicare, we need to know what the growth rate by 1.5% a year to maintain solvency. it can still grow and protect seniors, but the rate of growth reduced over time. i would begin with a systematic reform of insurance -- pharmaceuticals, and tort

lawyers, yielding competition across state lines, caps, and discounts. [applause] this doesn't just help medicare. it helps every american, a young and old. i will allow tax-free medical savings accounts for younger workers. [applause] i would offer 25% incentive to providers who institute procedures which save money for patients and the system. incentivize them. innovation will explode. the health-care system will be changed. i would target other agencies, other parts of government, with management. i would downside downsize, downsize, downsize. [applause]

you could take transportation, the projects are local. i would eliminate the department of energy. [applause] i would put education where it works best, back home with the parents and grandparents. [applause] the housing subsidies are gone, and fannie mae and freddie mac will be buried by me personally. to the embarrassment of clinton, bush, obama, and most congressmen in between, with the appointment of a handful of dedicated americans, we will turn around this bank from institutional government, downsizing and management. that is what i would do.

as part of that we will consolidate i t. we will standardize software. we will replace half of all of the federal workers who will retire in the next 10 years, 42%. we will replace them with technology, providing better service, lower payroll costs, and a sustainable budget. do you know -- i was shocked when i read the budget, it has been 20 years. and i have been in the real world building jobs 20 years without reading the fed will budget. i read it here again do you know we have 18 different food assistance programs? we have 20 different homelessness programs. we have 80 different programs in usda, dot, education, hhf,

the aide to transport disadvantaged citizens to needy services. management, management, management. get used to the number one. not 18, not 20, not 80. [applause] it is what i do as a ceo. tax reform is another fundamental step in the turnaround. i will keep it simple. the codes should be simple. the current code is written by the lobbyists. it is a disgrace. it is not promoting growth. it is unreadable and deliberately so. we need simplicity. small business emphasis. broadfaced fairness. what was marginal rates possible with the he was exemptions.

i like the concept of a fair tax. however, are you prepared to pay 23 to 32% rates that it calls for? i would rather start with the 6% top rate on the first 125,000 of joint taxable income with the top rate at 575,000 of 26%. this favors small businesses. i would settle corporate between 14 and 18, depending on how many loopholes and car about tweaking get rid of. we will lay the platform for growth, we will combine it with budget discipline. we will go for simplicity, clarity, fairness, collateral rates but progressive. the lowest marginal rates possible to make as a haven for capital. we will 0 the tax on dividends and capital gains. we will 0 estate taxes.

-- ito estate taxes. we will see roll them up to 10 million an index that dollar amount so it will go up over time. we will eliminate the alternative minimum tax and the marriage penalty. and [applause] let me give you some news, it is not enough. and i love all of these candidates. they talk about scrubbing the budget. in most of them has never done it. it is not enough. it needs to be done. but it is not enough. , our actions must be bolder, because we are a nation producing no new jobs. it is not enough.

we have lost 1.1 million jobs in the last 12 years. our unemployment rate combined with our not looking rate is 11.5%. when you add the 15.6 who were working part-time or took a job up 40% less pay, one out of four american families are hurting today. they are hurting. those that have a job are scared of losing it. not only is unemployment killing america, the pay for the jobs we do have is not keeping pace with life's needs. we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and what is left do not pay anything. we have traded manufacturing jobs in america for service jobs. a mcdonald's, insurance, call

support teams, wal-mart. these are decent job since, but they are hard to build a family with them. they are hard to build a community. they are hard to build a church. they are impossible to build a nation we used to be a nation that made things, buildings, manufactured things. made in america. do you remember it? it used to mean something. you could drive across america and come do it with me next week. i have done it for the past six weeks, drive across america in town after town, alabama, georgia, south carolina, new hampshire, iowa, south dakota and louisiana, and there was at town with a ball bearing factory. it is gone.

furniture plants are gone. clothing manufacturers are gone. on auto parts plant has moved away. we only have 8% of the work force in manufacturing. the rest of us are in service or sales. looking back, i believe we gave many of these jobs away. maybe i am guilty. i was in congress eight years. looking back, i think we were hurt by technology. that has an effect. i think we were hurt by bad management. and i think we were hurt by heavy handed and short-sided union actions. and the big chunk of the best jobs we gave away. we gave those a way to china, mexico, japan, india, korea.

we sell them grain, and our best jobs, and they sell us everything else. as stephen moore wrote in the wall street journal, we used to be a nation of makers. we now are a nation of takers. more americans work for government today and for manufacturing, mining, utilities, farming, fishing, forestry, construction combined. made in america, not anymore. we must take bold actions commen. [applause] scrubbing the budget is good. revising the tax code is necessary, but it is not enough for any nation at risk. number one, i am are ronald

reagan tax cut guy. i was in congress voting with him as a conservative democrat from 1981 to 1988 when i became governor of louisiana. you see those same principles in milo, marginal rate proposal. however, we need to do more. number one, the you know what the new taxes are? regulations. the democrats cannot pass a tax, so they passed regulation. and did you know that we had 81,405 pages of regulatory comments printed in 2010 alone? 81,000. there are store -- 4000 new regulations in the pipeline at present.

only 16 at a cost benefit analysis. and large business does not care. they have tax lawyers. they have lobbyists. what about small business people? two out of three. do they have this kind of let's deal with the regulations. do you know small business paid more for regulation/year than they did in taxes? ronald reagan would stand here and tell you regulations are the new taxes. i would go back to january 1, 2008, and every regulation imposed since then would be rescinded. [applause] go to work, america, and it will

be small business that leads as back. we will deregulate them first thing. number two, we will break our addiction to foreign oil. what a disgrace. [applause] we will be energy independent by the end of the decade. we will utilize all forms of domestic production. we will eliminate the 500 billion annual trade imbalance. we will create 1 million new energy jobs for american spending money in america that is now being spent in saudi arabia. [applause] the government will not take winners and losers. it cannot. the marketplace will decide the mix, the price, and the content. to facilitate this commitment, the federal parliament will open all of its land come on shore and off, to drilling in the

state, and technologically advanced manner. [applause] -- if a safe and technologically-advanced manner. we will provide, promote drilling in environmentally sound manner, but drill we will. [applause] further, after renewed drilling has begun, we will begin to tear of imported oil to diminish its usage. the tariff will arise as willie -- as we approach the end of the decade. tariff revenue will not be used for government operations, but will reduce the principal on the national debt. our foreign energy terex will be imposed on all nations but mexico and canada. regulations for drilling permits will allow for expedited

clearance, depended on the typography to be drilled. we will have regulations that will allow for the expansion of domestic refining capacity, and when necessary, regulations will be cooperative, instructed, and enforced by state agencies. the department of energy will be disbanded and defunded. [applause] that only saves 25 billion the first year. and any useful, and valued or necessary function of the department will be reassigned to other existing federal agencies. all energy subsidies will be eliminated, including ethanol, oil, natural gas and unproven energy technology. the savings will exceed $100

billion annually. we will open the nuclear waste facility in nevada. and thus save generation of energy will assist our independence and should remain at 20% of our domestic use. our foreign policy will take oil interests off the table. we will have no other marines or army personnel serving on the oil duty. since we are no longer spending 500 billion per year in the middle east on oil, the money that slipped out from the sheik's to the terrace will stop. -- to the terrorists will stop. [applause]

we will reduce the price of oil over time. the chavez regime in venezuela will not be happy with this policy. we will. [applause] we will additionally erect a no- trade policy for all foreign products attempted to be imported in the united states containing a single drop of iranian -- iranian oil in the production and transportation. this policy is aimed at iran until they agreed to discontinue the buildup of nuclear weapons capability.

nuclear non-proliferation is our policy, and we are prepared to use the economic power and might of america and its allies in a focused way to get this done. finally, the jobs benefit of energy independence are incalculable. millions in manufacturing who need a domestic supply of affordable energy. this is what made america how you build it. this is what comes when this is your policy. this is what happens when it is your focus. people go back to work again. [applause] #3, the third bold move will be to discontinue our nation's neglect of the issues surrounding fair trade and the loss of americans best jobs.

we cannot protect americans jobs from technology. we should embrace technology, but we have to take advantage of who we are. we can protect american jobs from free trade that is not free. we will protect these jobs from unfair trading practices. from hidden, non-their areas in other areas. on trade i will be about free and fair, free alone has not worked for america. we will start with their. -- with fair. [applause] isam abraham lincoln on this point, a short version. -- i am abraham lincoln on this

point, a short version. [laughter] it is time that we look at it again. it is time that we will not widely stand by and let our best and brightest be dusted off by unfair trade practices or the abuse of label -- labor practices of others. we will no longer plays a full. we will practice free trade for it works, but we will practice their trade in every relationship. finally, i am a banking ceo that has traveled the world. india, argentina, brazil to love and on. and i know when we are being taken advantage of. i know that our own corporate giants have never been more profitable than they are right now, because they keep sending these high-price american jobs

overseas. i promised that we will change the tax code and the spending policies and stop using your tax payer money to defend the practice of and enable the procedures of sending american jobs overseas. their trade. their trade. fair trade. fourth and final action, i will run successfully for president, excepting $100 maximum contribution. like i always do, no pac money, full disclosure. i will attempt to keep the tyranny of the big check. if we do not do this, the changes necessary to rebuild

america will never happen, because of washington is bought and sold. the status quo will win. they will fight me every step of the way. the politically elite, the politically-entrenched never had it so good. america is hurting and d.c. is a boom town. wall street is near an all-time high. and unemployment at 9.5. wall street banks are as greedy as ever. no one is going to jail. obama is raising $1 billion for reelection at 35,000 per ticket. obama did not cause this recession, he has just made it permanent. [laughter] [applause]

i want a plain, working people. i what small business people. i want the guys that are getting foreclosed and downsized and laid off. it is not my ideas that make me right to be president. there are many good ideas out there. our job is to take them all in. it is my freedom to do what needs to be done. that is what is right. that is what is bold, to consider all of the good ideas without being obligated to a packed or special interest. or to business as usual. >>[applause] that is how viavoice run, and that is how i boys beat the incumbent democrat. always. get on my website www.buddyroemer.com

i have raise contributions from 45 states. nobody else has. louisiana, texas, california, georgia be my top five. i average $90.34 per donation. i paid all my bills, and i have money in the bank. my specialty is beating incumbent democrats who are institutionally corrupt, which i did from the united states congress, and which i did from governor of louisiana. i did it with no pac money, hard limits on giving, and all of the experts were united that i could not win. all i need is one out of 100. i need one american out of 100 to give me $100. that is 3 million americans. that is 300 million in the primaries. that is more money than it

romney or john mccain had spent four years ago. i need one out of 100. one out of 100. i need to out of 100. and i would challenge him to five debates from foreign policy to jobs. for illegal immigration to scrubbing the budget. and we will decide at $100 per person who owns america, the billion dollars special interest, or plain and good people? [applause] the last poll had been known by 3% of the people.

i had to% of the vote. and i would not trade places with everybody -- anybody. the leader had 100% recognition and 17% of the boat. who would you rather be? in the age of the internet, in the age of the nation in trouble, i ask you to stand with me. i ask you to stand with me and take this country back here [applause] >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site for politics and the presidential race. for the latest c-span events, a bio information on the candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates and links to c-

span media partners, visit us at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> former white house and congressional officials will discuss checks and balances in government. you can see live coverage at 2:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight, former sec chairman michael powell, now the head of the national cable and tele- communications association will talk about telecom issues and his transition from government to have the cable industry association. that is the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span to. former u.s. ambassador to china, announces his bid for president tomorrow. we will have live coverage. he is the former governor of utah. >> next month, author and activist, linda hogan, include

writings on native americans and women in the current world here and joined our three-hour conversation taking your phone calls, emails, and tweets sunday july 3 at noon eastern on c-span. >> more now from the republican leadership conference held this past weekend in new orleans. we will hear remarks from stephen russell who commanded a unit to search for saddam hussein. he is retired now and written a book about the search. he talked about the experience of the conference for about 10 minutes.

>> am steve russell. i have the privilege to work with the command force that took down saddam hussein. [applause] -- i am steve russell. thank you. thank you. [applause] among the soldiers that were started with us that night was ian wikel and tom payne. ian discovered the orchards on two farms that are targeted.

mark payne scored needed the information as a battle captain for the fourth grade of the fourth infantry division. the soldiers know -- little did the soldiers know that when there were roommates they would both be part of the forces that made history that night. returning to iraq with the same grade later but now each in command of their own companies. ian was killed in action in april of 2006. those of us that served with him pay our respects as he was laid to rest at arlington national cemetery. six months later, after suffering a concussion and ignoring those injuries, mark payne led his troops in a combat operation in which he was also killed by enemy fire in october of 2006. so i made another trip to the arlington national cemetery to pay respects to yet another friend. at the burial, if you have been

to the cemetery, they lay casualties in order they are received. we noticed that when we buried mark, that he was laid at the feet of ian wikel, . roommates at the academy, best friends in battle, and out together in life and death. after the burial, i wandered around the nation's capital trying to mentally process a great number of things. politicians on both sides of the ideals bump their chests about hopelessness of our service is and our mission in iraq. everywhere i turned the air was full with mellon collie about how the war was lost. i decided to visit the national air and space museum for destruction while waiting for my plane to go out the next evening. while i waited i noticed there

was the right flyer. as i walked around the rotunda of it and looked at how it was built, i noticed they were the naysayers, the people that said it could never fly. upon examination looking at it, it was hard to believe a tinkle of campus and what was struggled into the air. coming out from this exhibit and noticed a surge here looking craft with a brave title emblazoned on this side and i noticed the hon no forward- looking window, just a forward- looking pilot. you could still hear the naysayers. you will die just like all the others, you fool. you will never get off the ground with the weight of all of the gasoline. you will never stay awake. you cannot do it alone. rounding the corner to examine spacecraft, i was struck by the

apollo 18 lunar module and wondered how a substance that look to me like aluminum foil could support life in outer space. how was it that we found americans foolish enough to believe that you could be strapped onto a rocket at 2000 metric tons that would break apart by design and purlieu into space, and because of someone's mathematical copulation, that you would be launched towards the moon, and because of the theory of gravity that you would be pulled there, and as you got there, the last remaining sections would break apart yet again enjoying and find one in other. and then they would land on the moon to plant a flag, pop back up and joined back together, crawl back in come in slingshot back to earth and then as they came up thousands of miles per hour and would slow down what they hit the fiery atmosphere,

but we will put asbestos plates on the bottom and will protect you? and then as you come through at hundreds of miles per hour, parachutes will deploy, and you will land in the pacific ocean and the helicopter will come and find you? [laughter] yet that is exactly what we americans achieved in this country. [applause] but to read the headlines of the day, you would hear this -- what about the poor? what about the war on poverty? what about the things that really matter in this country? as a look at it, i wonder how different our world would be today without portable right, charles lindbergh, and neil armstrong? as i re-entered the gloomy -- , i left inspired.

it dawned on me america has never been built on the labor and hard work of a cynic and credit. [applause] cynics and critics, soldiers of this generation have had a bellyful of them. every monumental mission our nation has asked of our men and women in uniform since 9/11 has been accomplished. overthrow the italian government, done. kill or capture osama bin laden, done. defeat the government and overthrow the government, done. kill or capture saddam hussein, done. [applause] we the soldiers have done it with a colonel -- with

instructions of liberals, cynics, and critics telling us it was all some big mistake. nonsense. [applause] what can we learn? perhaps this. there are still things we are fighting for. an[applause] america has not been built on the labor and hard work of the senate and credit. there are still americans today that know how to sacrifice. there are still americans that know the difference between what is evil and what is good. who is a threat and who is harmless. whether to live free or quit on this country and die. thank god america still has men and women such as you today who still believe this as well. americans need to sacrifice along with her soldiers.

sacrifice this, sacrifice that. sacrifice anxiety. sacrifice cynicism. as visionary as we republicans claim to be, we will make little headway if our only answers are mere sideline snipes at what is wrong with this country. our task is to show the american people what is right with the united states of america. [applause] it is time to ignore the cynic and get to work. in any soldier knows you make use of the time that you have, not the time you would like to have. and you never quit. you stay on a mission until it

is accomplished. if we want to honor those that will never come home, that will never know the joys of marriage and raising children, who will never live in the freedoms that there sacrifice purchased, then we must honor it by restoring the country that they died for. [applause] i believe the sum total of our lives is how we invest in other people, and we the people, the defenders of this great nation, have a responsibility to serve our god, country, and also give of our talents and efforts to preserve what is the dream of the american way of life. may you be such leaders, and as we face the wind and look to the future, we will always have the naysayers, those around us that take counsel of their fears, but

as we endeavor to take risks, lead, and achieved, we have to ignore their calls saying it will never fly. keep the faith, do not quit, god bless you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we are showing some of the past events from this weekend's republican leadership congress. later today, congressional officials will discuss the u.s. system of checks and balances in government. you can see live coverage it to o'clock eastern here on c-span. tonight on the communicators, michael paul wolff, now the head of the national cable corp. talks about telecom issues and his transformation of government to head the cable industry

association. that will be on the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern. former u.s. ambassador to china, jon huntsman announces his bid for president tomorrow. he is making his announcement of the same place ronald reagan kicked off his presidential campaign. >> this weekend "book tv" looks at the literary life of savannah, georgia. including the childhood home of flannery o'connor. n so, a tour of southern sit slavery sites. travel to the founding days of savannah as we visit the site of warm slope plantation and tour

antebellum san bayonet. c-span in savannah georgia this weekend. -- tour antebellum mansions in savannah. ayou can listen to our signature interview programs each week. it is all available round-the- clock were ever you are. download it free from blackberry app world. >> we return to the republican leadership conference. the nephew of george w. bush spoke. george bush is the former sun -- the son of jeb bush. he spoke about his family's legacy for about 20 minutes. [applause]

>> good morning. judging by the size of the crowd, i hope you were not expecting the other george bush's. i am the first george bush to be on facebook. i asked you to if you can come up like me on facebook so that i can keep in touch with you with respect to maverick pact, which is a political action committee i am involved with in helping to engage young americans in the political system. [applause] since i am here, i might as well give up bush family update. my grandfather, former president george h w bush just recently turned 87. barbara bush, aka the enforcer,

executed her veto and respecting him from jumping out of a perfectly fine claimed once again. however, he will jump out again when he is 90, and we're all looking forward to seeing that happen. some of you might have saw last week you received an honorary law degree with burt smith, along with conan o'brien, making him the third lawyer in the family, joined in my wife and i. so much for tort reform. he received the presidential medal of freedom very recently, which is considered the highest honor given to a civilian in our country. he thought it was cool because he got to meet bill russell and stan the man usual. all of these events culminated at the kennedy center in a tribute to his foundation, the points of life, which we are all members and able to enjoy with him and celebrate in that moment. and a lot of folks have asked

bush and his and jeb busjob political plans -- jeb bush, i do not have any news, but he is working on government ideas. the activities i think he has accomplished since leaving office is an amazing testament to how you do not necessarily have to run for public office to make a change in our country. finally, with respect to my uncle george and aunt laura, i am here to make an unmitigated plan to buy their book if you can. my uncle's book sat at the new york times best-seller list for over 24 weeks, which he considers to be one of his strongest accomplishments. recently they are completing their plans for the presidential

library in dallas tx. we look forward to welcome you all. as vice-president cheney recently joke, it is about the only shuttle bus ready project -- shovel-ready project in light of the recession it goes without saying that in my generation 9/11 really is the defining moment for the generation. whether it was the numerous deployments for military service, volunteering to teach inner-city schools are getting involved in politics for the first time, young -- young americans have answered the call. and after having returned from afghanistan very recently myself, i learned about the painful realities for yearning for public servants to get involved in to create a better tomorrow. i know and our own time my generation faces another challenge, and that is the greatness of our country has been compromised. throughout our history, it has been an unwritten rule that the

leadership strives to lead a country more prosperous and rich with opportunity than the one they inherited. this is no longer the case. my generation will be the first to not have as much opportunity as those that came before us. instead of being offered an opportunity or hand up, we are being handed a big fat invoice. just a generation ago, if an economist for to analyze sovereign risk, it would be unlikely that the u.s. would be on the top of that list. fast forward to this year in 2011, that same economists is tasked with a similar challenge and probably be fired if he did not pinpoint the u.s. has a country that is subject to sovereign risk. this dramatic transportation -- transformation happened in small increments over the years. that is until the economic crisis, which demonstrated the

underlying problems stemming from the economic policy. a dysfunctional helped her system, state and local governments, pension liabilities, and of course, our unsustainable federal debt and deficits are a few of the reasons why. they along with other challenges that we based explain why rating agencies now have the united states on of what was for downgrades that is from investment-grade. i am not here to be mown the current fiscal crisis we face, nor do i think the average person my age is resigning themselves to an action as this is not an irreversible situation. i know my generation and the republican party will lead a turnaround of the country declined with significant policy changes that focus on long-term economic growth, and corresponding job creation. given the pension for taking on great challenges, and our willingness to serve causes

greater than ourselves, the u.s. will grow at a more robust rate, but it will require profound changes in policy that are being spearheaded by our party. i would like to talk briefly about these issues that republicans are currently leading in the halls of congress. really they essentially involved more use of common sense than anything else, and that is in connection with energy, tax and regulation, and education policy. make no mistake some of the biggest political fight of my generation will be to undertake the low margins -- the looming national debt we face, a current spending levels, and the size and scope of government. this is definitely a fight worth fighting in my opinion. however, that should not stop us from getting energy insecurity policy, unshackle american businesses and individuals from over regulation and taxation in transforming how we educate our children. great countries cannot depend on foreign sources of oil.

30 years ago 20% of the oil consumed by the united states was imported. with increasing demand, nearly 60% of oil utilize and consumed in the u.s. is imported from other countries, even though our country has many natural resources available to us. 10 of the countries that we currently imports are on the state department's travel warning list. we spend approximately 1 billion per day purchasing overseas oil instead of investment dollars that could be used organically within our own borders. this is essentially a disruptive tax on the american consumer. the good news is the real new production technology is gone from imminent decline in our own natural resources to current projections of having at least 100 years of current supply. however, the current administration is embarking on new rules to restrict the new development of imposing new taxes, new regulations come elimination's a new deductions on the industry, and also

supported special interest groups that attempt to strike fear in the hearts of those that are currently developing an urban areas. if we are to grow at a 4% gdp rate, which is what the white house projects to meet their: predictions, and which is what we need to afford to service our current debt and be within striking distance of reducing the national deficit, we need to export our own forms of energy right now. most noticeably in the form of natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear, and renewals. our president should show commitment by creating a long- term strategy about this crisis. certainly the senate amendment that was recently passed curtailing all of the ethanol subsidies is a step in the right direction. [applause] time and time throughout history and our country we are taught

that to generate meaningful revenue, we have to do it through lowering taxes not increasing taxes, to encourage production and job creation we need to do exactly that. taxes on corporations are way too high. there are the second highest in the industrialized world. to remain competitive we need to reduce the current tax rate, because just by doing that by 1%, investment falls by 3.7%. price waterhouse coopers conducted a study that showed a reduction to 30 percent of the corporate income tax we would create over 50 basis points of gdp growth. more importantly, republicans right now throughout the country are focusing on what government actions will do for small businesses, which is the lifeblood of the economy, especially as it relates to young for americans. 99.7% of all business entities are small businesses. they currently employ over half

of those in our country. not only that, but small businesses create over half of all intellectual property generated in the country, which we so desperately need. since most small-business owners create taxes that have corresponding income tax rate, we discourage corporate outlays, and stagnant wages for existing workers precisely at the time when we need our country to get back on track. larger businesses can typically access the too big to fail stimulus programs that are available, but small-business owners typically pay the price. maybe there should be a small business czar fighting mandates that stifle entrepreneurship and innovation. [applause]

finally, our education system is being transformed based on the good works of republicans throughout our country. in order to match the needs of the 21st century, we need to change the current education system. regretfully we still have the school year based on time on whether students advance, standards are no longer meaningful, curriculum is not germane to the jobs of are in the future, and our results by all measures indicate we are behind other countries like korea, singapore, and most of europe. to be competitive in the 21st century, republicans are continuing efforts to revamp the system from starting with the ending of social promotion. students that have not mastered how to read by fourth grade need to do so before they are promoted to middle school. standards need to be raised in in ouruntries such -- an

country so that grave matter. we need to emphasize science and math so we do not to import scientists from other countries and take on students to encourage students to take on careers in these fields. we need to pay teachers for student performance, as opposed to longevity of service. [applause] we need more school choices, both private and public, to give parents and students alternatives and to create competition in the inner city. we spend more per student than any other country in the world, but the outcomes me to get dramatically better. we need accountability in the education system now. [applause] having said all of this, one

need only to turn on the tv this week to see the compelling images of greece to become more aware of the burdens of debt, deficit, and weakening of the currency. the consequences of the nation but that surpasses gdp and when that rating agencies placed the country's credit on what list when the interest on the debt exceed at normal levels of a percentage of gdp. without delving into the reality of current spending, we as americans face the excruciating choice of higher tax rates or significant austerity measures it clear, concise measures are not taken now. this year in total spending alone will exceed total federal revenue. think about that for a second. we cannot spend a dollar or any other defense or discretionary program and we still would not be able to balance the budget. the president's response has been to propose a budget that calls to suspend -- to spend 40

cents for every dollar we take in. ladies and gentlemen, this is not leadership, nor is a meaningful entitlement reform. we can index benefits to life expectancy or cost of living over time to help mitigate funding shortages. for younger americans, we are more likely to see a ufo than a social security checke. [laughter] implementing simple reforms right now gives us a vital chance. this especially the case when we discuss a system were over 40 workers basically provided for the benefits of one retiree. currently that ratio is only three to one. with medicare and medicaid expected to bankrupt in the coming years and roughly the same projections applied to

, dicaid, -- medicare cove we have to provide more flexibility to the end user. if the president and of the series were not already talking about the upcoming 2012 campaign cycle and were serious about reforming entitlements and containing the looming debt problem, they would provide either proposals of their own or utilize that our proposals as a basis to begin negotiations. just as my generation has stepped up to the country's challenges presently, i know we are on board with the painful decisions we have made, even if it is to our own detriment. the 9/11 generation cannot go down as the bankrupt generation. we have to reform entitlements now. [applause] in business meetings and

political events that i had the pleasure of engaging in, i sense that many believe america's days are behind it. i disagree with that assessment. i believe republicans are capable of leading a turnaround. [applause] we need to support republican leaders that are willing to put aside short-term focus and willing to risk political careers. we need to support leaders that spoke clearly about the challenges that my generation faces and the opportunities when we do act upon these challenges. we need to encourage leadership that demonstrates courage, creativity and integrity to make it happen. with that, let me leave you with the words of remarkable american, my grandfather, george h. w. bush. these words were delivered in his swearing in as are referred to -- for the first president of the united states. let future generations understand the burdens and blessings of freedom. let them say we stood where duty

required us to stand. let them know that together we affirmed america and the world as a community of conscience. in our rebound, as i look around this room, i rest assured that we as americans truly understand the burden and blessings of freedom. that historians will say we stood where duty required us to stand and that we will affirm the strength of our communities and create a better america. thank you very much. [applause] >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site for politics in the 2012 presidential election race. with the latest events from the campaign trail, no information on the candidates and twitter and facebook upgrades -- updates. -- bio information on the

candidates, and twitter and facebook updates. >> former u.s. ambassador to china jon hunstman announces his presidential campaign announcement tomorrow. on the communicators tonight, former sec chairman michael powell, now the head of the national cable and tele- communications association's talks about telecom issues in his transition from government to the cable industry. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span to. meanwhile, on capitol hill congress returns to legislative work tomorrow. senators will continue the nomination of general david patrice for cia chief this week. more work on an economic development bill. -- the nomination of general petreus for cia chief this

week. >> 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices. this new edition ebook includes an interview with elena kagan. what multimedia clips from all of the justices. available now wherever ebooks are sold. >> students from around the country are here in washington, d.c., for a conference looking at the legacy of ronald reagan and the working of the federal permit. the close-up foundation and of ronald reagan centennial foundation -- commissioned our coasts. the celebration is sponsored by the ronald reagan presidential

foundation. this week in washington, d.c., which convened in partnership with close-up a week-long conference titled "ronald reagan, close up." we have 102 students from all 50 states and the district of columbia with us this week in washington focused on getting to know their government, learning about ronald reagan, and focusing on a theme of civil discourse. during the session today we will hear from three perspectives on how our branches of government work together on a daily basis. while the interface of the branches of government in this country are not always harmonious, for 235 the united states has stood as a strong example of democracy in our world. a transition of power successfully and working together to achieve the benefits of the good of our country and for our place in the world. our panelists today -- and we have an extraordinary panel --

and needed mcbride, michael allen, and rachel brand. anita mcbride has a long and distinguished career in american politics and government. she is currently a fellow for the american university center for congressional and presidential studies and serves on the j. william fulbright foreign scholarship. she served as assistant to president george w. bush and chief of staff to first lady laura bush from 2005 until 2009. also under president george w. bush, mrs. mcbride worked in the state department and senior adviser for the bureau of international organizations and white house liaison and serve as special assistant to the president for white house management. mrs. mcbride's white house service spans three administrations, beginning with the reagan demonstration in 1984, from a 7-92 was the director for white house personnel for presidents reagan and george h. w. bush.

michael allen, this serves as majority staff director for the house intelligence committee. adoring administration of george w. bush, mr. allen, a senior director for counter proliferation and senior director for legislative affairs at the national security council. he also helped -- held senior legislative affairs roles in the bush administration homeland security council and department of state. rachel brand serves as the national chamber litigation center's chief counsel for regulatory litigation. before assuming this role she was with the firm of wilmur hale and prior to that served in government for nearly eight years as assistant attorney general for legal policy at the u.s. department of justice and associate counsel to the president at the white house. to begin our conversation today, i would like to hear from our panelists and little bit of their views from experience or perhaps of their study of history about how -- howl ronald

reagan worked with his white house staff and his administration in dealings with the congress over the eight years of his presidency. anita, i know you knew him personally and work in the white house. share your observations about how ronald reagan -- dealt with other branches of the government in washington. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and be with all the students. i love talking about this topic. ronald reagan gave me my start in politics. because of him, when i was able to vote i registered to vote and i worked on the campaign of ronald reagan as a volunteer. it was something so inspirational and positive about the way he approached our country. and it inspired me to get involved. i hope you could feel that same way about candidates you will see in your future that want to lead our country. with that optimism -- it drove me and drove others and drew people from a variety of

parties -- or mobile sectors around our country that felt that ronald reagan cared about the nation. and in dealing with the congress most specifically -- you report -- referred to the poll in politico that 85% of the american people think we are at such a cell level of civil discourse in our country. and i think about president reagan whose arch enemy politically on policy issues was the speaker of the house at the time, a tip o'neill. yet that and never blended into how he spoke about him personally and vice versa. there was a personal relationship between the two of them that was quiet, in private quarters, that was over a drink, perhaps, in the office behind me -- the old office or up in the residence, where they can talk about -- they found a common ground and they shared an irish ancestry and maybe they

developed a relationship over jokes or an understanding of each other's backgrounds and of the same time. -- they were -- time period. they were contemporaries. they disagreed viscerally on policy but they did in never bled into how they spoke about its other personally. president reagan had an optimistic character and comported himself of that way. he never spoke ill of other republicans and was very careful to not speak ill of those who may have disagreed on his policies. he just stood firm on his policies and they were principles he agreed with greatly and people knew where he was coming from. in dealing with the white house staff, we took direction from his leadership, and we comport ourselves the same way he did. it may be not for everybody but for the majority of people, if you are a young person like me, that is where i cut my teeth. i think that is how i tried to

conduct myself over the three administrations i worked over -- maybe my colleagues i worked with might say differently. but i think that we did -- i learned from him and i carry that to this day. >> michael, rachel, how you feel about civil discourse today and the state of affairs in our city and perhaps some of the anecdotal about ronald reagan and how he conducted himself as present working with congress. >> thanks for having me here today. it is a pleasure. i would like to thank the reagan foundation and national archives and close up for having me today. i guess one of the most notable thing about ronald reagan and civil discourse is how much time he invested with the congress in his first term. it is not unlike the situation president obama finds himself in today where his party controls the senate but his party does not control the house. and that is the situation president reagan found himself

in the in 1981. i think the most interesting thing that explains the legislative prowess, the legislative power that reagan showed was that he invested time with the congress. in the first hundred days -- i looked up last night and he did some 169 meetings with some members of congress causing some to joke we saw more of ronald reagan and the first 100 days than we saw a jimmy carter the last four years. when he was able to invest that amount of time with him and build a report and lay a foundation for civil discourse, i think it helped pave the way for his momentous legislative achievements, especially the tax-cut bills he put through early in his first term. so, it is something of legislative affairs office system learn from. and those of us who had to work with the congress from the white house perspective, and even down the road here, should study his sort of model. i guess the last thing i would

sort of point out about why he was so popular in the congress was because he was popular in the country. i think he was able to drive a message across the country so that some of the democrats who at that time were called boll weevil democrats, who were in states that runway -- ronald reagan carried in the 1980 election, were afraid to vote against them. they were afraid of their constituents would hold them responsible for that. so he was able to tap into his sort of the immense political prestige and charisma and translate it into legislative success. which is ultimately all presidents need an order not only to get reelected but also to safeguard the american people and to win reelection. >> i think anita covered the relationship reagan had with congress, with the staff. the thing that is amazing to me -- and by the way, i think it is great you all are here.

i was a little hesitant when i heard this would be a historical represented -- retrospective about reagan because i was younger than you are when he left office but my first political memory is on a farm in iowa hearing my mom and dad and grandpa's talking about the reagan-carter campaign. it is good you are here and you are paying attention to politics at a young age. i think you will be happy you did. the thing i always a mired about reagan despite getting into politics after he had gone is his courage and strength and optimism. and it is really the thing to take away is that stability, being nice, a good relationship does not mean you can't be strong and it that you can't push for things you care about. you look at reagan -- he took on tax cuts, he took on the cold war, he took on the air traffic controllers -- whenever it was, he was strong. he was not ashamed of pushing for what he believed and but he

was able to do it in a way that did not have to resort to uncivility. then i know we have questions for some of the students. there is a microphone on either side. you can make your way to the microphone a of a question. one question for rachel. i know the judicial appointment and confirmation process was important confluence of the three branches of government and given your experience in the confirmation process of several chisholm in nominees during the bush administration, did you look at the historical impact of previous administration, particularly some in the reagan administration, and draw lessons or conclusions about how to work effectively with the senate in the confirmation process and work with those appointees as well? >> just for the audience, i was in the justice department when chief justice roberts and justice and leto were nominated and from confirmed the part of my job was to help look at candidates for the supreme court and once the renominating denominated, help them get confirmed.

before we even knew we had a supreme court vacancy we were getting ready just in case somebody retired. i went back and i talked to white house counsel from previous administrations who had been in the ragged administration and reagan had four appointments to the courts, three new appointments -- kennedy, o'connor, and scalia and elevated rehnquist from a social justice to chief justice. all of those, you learn lessons from mistakes that were made. you look at the things congress was interested in den and a lot of issues carry forward. in the case of the senate, some senators are in office along that the people and send it back when reagan were making nominations are still there now. you look at the kind of questions they ask and take lessons away. >> do you think that process is more or less contentious now than it was at that time? >> the bork hearings -- who has heard of robert bork and heard

about the hearings? nobody? ok. one over here. reagan first nominated robert bork to the supreme court. he was a very conservative scholar, law professor, very prominent and very controversial on some of his views. and the. borking has become a verb, and it stands for doing away with someone in the confirmation process, kind of destroying their nomination. that came away from contentious hearings he had in the senate. that was very contentious. that was shortly after -- that was one of the first hearings that had tv coverage which contributed to the contentiousness of it. i guess i can say hearings are now more contentious than historical because you could go back to george washington to find contentions. he nominated john rutledge and tried to make and chief justice. he could not get him confirmed. nixon had a two supreme court

nominees go down in flames. it is tv-covered now and in the press now but it is not a new phenomenon. >> you mention the media and we are joined by our friends and c- span and we are very grateful for that coverage and the wide exposure of this program across the nation. what role does the media play or how does the president and congress used the media against each other to advance their agenda for objective or their side of the argument and how did ronald reagan do that effectively or in effectively? >> the media plays a huge role. i guess in reagan's time it was primarily dominated by the nightly newscasts -- nowadays there is a lot said about how the internet and the diversification of news sources has changed politics. in those days it was the major news get -- newspapers and major broadcast networks. i think one of the things that is interested -- interesting

about the way the media dominates the conversation in washington, particularly in congress, is a lot t off from what is on the front pages of "the new york times" or "the washington post." if you want to get up to speed quickly you want to make a habit of reading with two newspapers. they drive the rest of the reporters, what they ask about all day. they drive what the members of congress are most interested in and what the congress will ask of the white house. and it is something that the white house has to manage constantly all day. and indeed, we have huge staff not only back in the reagan days but in the bush days and of course the obama days -- and some cases dozens of people whose job it is just to deal with the media and chase down different stories and try to get the president's message out. on reagan, you heard the old phrase, he was the great communicator. he was able to dominate the media center identify with

people and that, iraq -- common man better than many comp -- politicians, which is part of the reason why he goes down as history as one of our greatest presidents. >> he understood the power of image. he understood the power of communication. i think for all of a negative rhetoric about president reagan or gov. reagan when he ran for president, having been an actor, some of those skills really did help him. he knew the power of language and he knew when to go to the american people and was able to work fairly effectively with the media when the president wanted to address the nation. and he did it in very pivotal times, whether bringing a message of comfort after different periods of grief and our country or when there was a particular policy that he wanted to sell. because he really believed in one thing -- that it was the

people he was working for, not anyone else. and he really understood that. but that is true, thank you. let us go to some of our students. >> my name is brian russell, from south lagrange, range. my question is for mrs. mcbride. with your experience with first lady laura bush, i'm wondering how much affect she has on public policy and how often she is involved in the day-to-day politics going on in the white house. >> thank you for asking the question. i really appreciate it. what i am doing in my post white house life, spending a good portion of my time at american university developing a course of study surrounding the role of american first lady and their impact on politics and policy and diplomacy. throughout our history, first ladies really have been as silent partner to the chief executive. but like everything else, as

there is more media coverage and attention, we begin to expect more incorrect times out of our first ladies, that they really do take on their active role and an advocate of issues. they are best at it when they do take on something that is authentic and genuine to them and in complete concert with what the goals of the particular administration are. mrs. bush did that very well. she used education as her platform to travel the world on behalf of the present's efforts on the global aids and malaria, linking literacy to help, major programs that through the generosity of the american people the president launched, and she was an advocate for and continues in her post-first lady like today. i am headed to dallas in about an hour. we will be launching a women's initiative at the bush institute so she can consider some of this work.

i think first ladies can be very effective. it is an unofficial position. it has no salary. i hope that never changes because i think it gives the first lady a lot of flexibility to do what she wants to do. she is best when it is authentic and in concert with the president. >> let's take another one from this side. >> my name is jack thomas from kansas. my question is really to whoever will decides to take it. based on your experience in washington, what advice would you offer our generation to improve the public's negative perception of civil discourse in american politics. >> good. >> why are you looking at me? >> in all, one of the things -- i am not sure this directly answers your questions but one of the things i found frustrating in government was how little it seems to me that people understood how government works. perhaps as a result of that, you

would see media stories covering events, like decisions of the supreme court or aspects of the confirmation process that really kind of muddy the water about the role of the courts, for example, versus the role of congress or the executive branch. i think it is great you all are educating yourself on how the government works. it would be great if more purple -- people do that because that would improve the discourse and the media coverage and a whole level of politics would improve if people were better educated and more involved so i commend you to do that. if your classmates and get everyone involved. >> thank you. >> anita, did you had -- have something to add? >> i was thinking when rachel was talking about the confirmation she worked on for the supreme court and how the discourse around how we treat people who are willing to go into public service, and in these cases, public service for life. and to be treated the way robert

bork was treated, whether you disagree with his policies or not, they were personal attacks. i remember the hearings of justice alito and watching that on television in my office and mrs. bush was there and the point where martha alito started to cry and i remember being furious that we got to this level. i called misses bush of stairs and i s, are you watching this. she said, yes. i said this is ridiculous. she said i will call her. and she did. just to tell her, looked, this is politics. try not to let it get to you personally. you know who sam is and you know who you are. and this is coming from a woman, who the person she loved the most in life, her husband, took the slings and arrows every single day. and yet it was remarkable to me that she never once said a bad

word about anyone in public or in private and would always say, i know who georges' it -- george is. we know we are as a family. this is politics. i wish it wasn't this way but i will not bring myself to this level. i think if we had more people who understood our government and how difficult it is to do these jobs, but how important it is an realize just how much work it takes, we may be wouldn't treat people willing to step up to the plate quite as bad as we do. >> you talked about the contentious but some -- contentious but special relationship president reagan had with speaker o'neill during these days. it seems that many of our debates take place through the media and out in the public. what do you think about -- michael, now that you are entrenched in the hill having been ensue in -- in the and ministration.

how do you think it is today? what is the flow back and forth of communication, what is the respect back and forth? is there a lot of direct person to person contact him of the white house and executive branch with congressional staff or is it all through the media where we see their interpretation or they lens. >> we saw president obama and speaker boehner went to play golf this weekend -- that was sort of unborn for the country to see the two of them were meeting face today -- that was sort of important for the country to see. one thing i don't think is appreciated are known by a lot of folks is how many people each president has working of the hill for them. presidencies and rise and fall whether to have success with congress or not. each president has for lack of a better word lobbyists, or legislative affairs folks. and we had over one dozen in the bush white house and the obama

administration has the same thing. it is the job of these people to go up and be assigned to members of congress, hang around on the hill. if you were sort of at the west wing when congress was in session, you might look like you were not doing your job because your job was to represent the president on the hill, getting to know the members of congress and being able to report back to the white house any development that could have affected the president's agenda. you cannot _ enough the importance of staff and supporting the modern presidency and being able to get the people up to the hill -- senior policy makers. and the national security council or domestic policy council, to talk to members of congress about their ideas and to be seen listening and to listen to the members of congress and tried to work in some of their suggestions. that is important in building legislative coalitions and all presidents have to do what.

bamako's birth weights. i was a policy person at the department of justice and there is a very close relationship between the administration and in congress the party of the president. when we were in office, republicans on the hill -- both, in terms of us going up to the hill saying what the patriot act reauthorized and let me explain to you what is in the patriot act, how does it work, why, what the president is saying about it -- it is not true, not trampling civil liberties. you are dispelling but -- the misconceptions. but people coming to the part of justice saying i really what to do a bill on meth. in iowa, it is a big problem. they will come to doj saying, you have experts in drug law, how we drafted? it is a two-way street. >> let's take another question.

i am washington state. for anybody. what are your opinions in regards to the current political rift between the democrats and republicans? >> what was it? the rift. >> could you take it that because you are on the hill and see it? >> there always rests between the parties. a lot said about how the american people want their members of congress to find solutions. that is true. but at the same time you also want spirited debate. you want people to serve as a diversity of ideas that have the marketplace of ideas. it happens on the hill every day where people are floating suggestions and trying to find the best solutions they possibly can. but i think it is true that at

times it seems like the rhetoric gets a little out of control, drives otherwise good people from getting in or staying in politics. so, it becomes a big problem, but you have to sort of distinguish between differences over substance -- which we should embrace -- and differences in tone and civility, which is something that doesn't always work. it doesn't work well and doesn't look good as we try to work through solutions. >> one more from this side. my name is just in bed my question is -- -- my name is justin. looking at it from an international point of view -- because reagan was already an effective communicator during the cold war, why did you guys think he still continues to increase defense spending -- the prophesies military industrial complex. even though he had those skills why did he need that? >> do you mind if i take this a

little bit. i am glad you asked that question because i was a young staffer in the white house in 1984. my first job was reading the mail that came to president reagan and selecting a sample that went with him every weekend to camp david that he would respond to personally. i was there at the time where president reagan proposed putting the pershing missiles in europe as a protection, as a defense -- this was still the time of the cold war. the president had intelligence that the soviet union was crumbling, and we have to trust our leaders, the commander in chief, i think, when they are faced with intelligence that nobody else sees. but really made a decision, showing the strength of the united states would be a deterrent for the soviet union

-- to strike against the united states when he knew they were not capable. it was seen as a warmongering decision. the president did not believe in the strength -- did believe in the military strength of the united states being cable -- capable of waging peace, not war. so i think it was a controversial decision, but again, related to the core principles that president reagan believed in and one was a rebuilding the defenses of the united states of america and its military, knowing that the position it played in the world as a leader and protection for other countries as well. >> thank you. >> the mention president reagan that a strong convictions and beliefs -- you mentioned

president reagan's strong convictions and beliefs. it never see him waver in that. how does it play out on the hill, when you have a president who is strong and clear and direct in their convictions, and even though they may differ on the other side, the other party, how does it make -- doesn't make the opposition stiffer, or are there ways you can work with the other side? you were saying president reagan was able to accomplish much of this does -- agenda with a democratic congress much of the time. how do you do it effectively? it is not always done. what is it about president reagan or any leader who has the strong ideological beliefs but is able to accomplish an agenda like president reagan was able to accomplish? >> one thing i found interesting about president reagan -- of course, he took office in a big election in 1980. he didn't control the house. there were many democrats in conservative districts of around the country and he made the decision early in his first term

that he wouldn't campaign against some of these so called boll weevil democrats because he made the judgment that the long- term interests of the republican party would be in legislative success. so, he knew he could help recruit them to vote for his tax cuts, to vote for his budget. so, because he made sort of a tactical judgment there, i think made it easier for some of the democrats to come over and vote against their leadership and vote for the president of the other party. this is sort of the big challenge that each white house has to deal with. this is how they put together a majority in each chamber, especially in the house. sometimes you need 60 votes in the senate. that is the way you can do it. you have to do sort of the total package, if you will. you have to have good relations with the hill. you have to spend time with them. but most of all you need to be able to connect with the american people some members of

congress will feel like if they vote for you they are voting with their constituents want and it makes it easier for them. >> how important is personality in a president in dealing with the congress or dealing with the press? it takes intelligence, it takes experience. but his personality important? president reagan had a great sense of humor. he loved to tell stories. there was a wonderful book published called "the notes close code which is in print form his hand written anecdotes, jokes, stores, he kept for decades in a book as he used to develop his remarks. and that it is an real skill, from his years of an act -- as an actor and broadcasting. how important is it in modern politics when so much as media driven to have that kind of personality that is camera family but also people friend. not everybody has both. >> likability is important i

think in all of our lives. you want to draw someone to you. it is one of the things we struggled with for president bush. those of us who knew him well and worked with him well and do how funny and likable he was, yet it was difficult to have that projected in the media, whether it was through friends or through television or even the radio -- through print or television or even the radio. there was an and patience that was conveyed and the press always reported on him that way. he came into office being -- the american people were told he was someone who did not read a book and not well read yet he was a voracious reader and had a great command of language and knew how to use words to have an impact.

yet it was never really conveyed it that way. i think that was very frustrating. >> another student. my name is christian from maryland. last night in the workshops we talked about forms of debate etiquette and procedure and a two definitions were debating with passion and emotion, and civility and respect. my question is, what do you think is the most effective to ensure lasting progress? >> go ahead, yes. >> passion-a motion, stability- respect. -- passion-emotion. stability and respect. sometimes need all of them. passion is good, emotion can be distracting. if you are going to be a good advocate in a debate or anyone else, you first have to know your facts. if you don't have facts behind you you are not going to convey anything, except for bluster,

but you have to be the communicate them passionately and compellingly. looping into the last question, it is very important for you to advocate them in a way that regular people can connect with. i have been watching the various presidential candidates in this cycle talk about things like smaller government. it is kind of hard to explain why smaller government benefits you or me, except for in kind of an esoteric political science kind of way. but there are good reasons. but if you can articulate those with anecdotes, things people can connect with. that is what reagan was great at. he would have funny lines like -- the most horrifying thing is to hear i am from the government and i am here to help you. he had those lines that could catch on with people. you can have your facts and passions and then you're accessibility to regular people. that is critical. >> on this side. my name is skyler ross first of

all, thank you for taken the time to speak with us. how do you believe civil discourse is either facilitated by or inhibited by the american system of checks and balances? >> i am from bridgeport, conn. so it is nice to see someone from connecticut here. well, i think with all of its faults, our system and government is still the finest in the world. i really do believe that. i thought about this coming over here today. there were articles that were in the politico newspaper talking about america in decline. and i think one of the articles was written by a member of congress. and i thought about how that kind of language from anyone, and particularly, someone in government, would really i think upset president reagan and i think it would anchor him because if anything, he really

believed in america. he believed in americans. i think that is what was so likable about him, too. you wanted to believe in your country, he wanted to be proud, he wanted to accept that we are not perfect and we do have -- yet it is the finest in the world. i think our system of checks and balances is credibly important. it is what keeps us on this. it is why in our country, around the world we are looked at as a nation that can collect and transition and inaugurate a president peacefully -- elect and transition and a moderate a president peacefully. that is important for our margins -- emerging democracies around the world who are struggling about how to set up their system of government, so that it serves the people the

best way it possibly can. >> i think checks and balances necessitates some level of stability. the courts are different because you do not have the same kind of unfiltered dialogue. and much more formal process. if congress could just pass laws without a presidential signature, why would they bother building much of a relationship with the president? they would not need to do that. >> let's take one more from the same side. >> i am from miami, florida. you guys previously all spoke about how ronald reagan was very optimistic and he really did not speak badly about anyone which made it effective. i question is, do you feel the lack of civil discourse negatively affects government decisions intended to benefit the nation as a whole?

>> the question is, you perceive that there is a lack of civil discourse on the question is that negatively affects people. sure, i do think -- that our principles and there is stability. you have to have some. you will not give up principles just to be civil, but at the same time you need to find a balance between the two. >> i think that is a great answer. >> thank you. >> my name is joe, from the state of south dakota. you worked with the laura bush and know what impact had. what role did nancy play in making ronald reagan a great president? >> they were a true partnership. and i think it was the -- i would say as a young staffer, in the white house i was very much aware of mrs. reagan's presence.

it was clear to all of us she was there to protect her husband. she really felt she had heard and 10 of their in support of her husband -- antennae there in support of her husband. she was also very effectively able to use the diplomatic tools at her disposal to help prevent president reagan -- present president reagan on the world stage. whether it was their large number of wonderful state dinners, important relationships around the world were posted in a way that was very respectful and it was beautifully done. so, i think she used the tools at your disposal to really put her husband and the best light she possibly could. and using the venue, the stage of the white house, and around

the world, was one very effective way where she did that. >> she was also a great champion of the just say no campaign with young people around the nation. >> and foster grandparents. yes, things that she did to help her husband, she also brought things with her from california that she worked on like the foster brand -- foster grandparent program. she was a brave woman to laugh at herself. she took a lot of ridicule from the press in her first year. yet, she turned that around and the press began to look at her differently when she showed up at a major washington event called the gridiron dinner and she was dressed in this -- thispoor and tattered clothes and there was a song she sang called sangclother -- second hand clothes.

then the meeting started to see her that she is a human being like all of us. regardless of whether she made mistakes or not, she could laugh at ourselves. >> that costume is that the reagan library. if you have not had a chance to visit the library in simi valley, there are 12 of these wonderful institutions of the country and the reagan library took a major renovation and reopened in february and is an extraordinary experience of history about ron reagan and those important eight years an american's history. and also important things about the present's summits with gorbachev. -- president's summit with gorbachev. it was mentioned earlier about the president and the role internationally. as you worked with colleagues and interfaced with other countries -- i know you have done a lot with afghanistan. how is the role of the president and the image of america conveyed through the personality? we know president reagan met in

four summit with gorbachev. it eventually led it to the date of all of the soviet union. -- it eventually led to the fall of the soviet union. there was his personality and the leverage involved in that dynamic. what can you talk about in terms of your experience and perspective about the influence of the president on the world stage and being able to deal civilly with our opponents? >> i might just say one thing about that and i will let my colleagues give their purse--- perceptions. i think that what remake -- makes effective relationships between leaders is they can trust each other, that they can have conversations that may be private and will remain that way. i think there was one of the four summits where president reagan excuse all of his staff and gorbachev excused all of his staff and the two of them spoke,

obviously through interpreters, and president reagan never betrayed confidences of world leaders. i know president bush did not do that. people could count on his word. i think those dynamics of being able to trust each other are really important. with that, i will let my colleagues had. >> part of the reason we send our presidents abroad to visit different countries around the world, in part to build a report -- rapport with foreign leaders. extremely poor and for any coalition, whether to get other nations to help us in libya -- extremely important for any coalition, whether getting nations to help us in libya, or to strengthen sanctions against iran.

it is important and ends the -- indispensable part is the personal relations the president has with these foreign leaders and that is why they have to be able to get around the world and that is why they try to cultural events and the like when they travel abroad because it is important to be able to convey the respect the united states has on their processes and culture and the rest, and that translates into something in a way that we are trying to inspire nations to vote with us and stand with us when things get tough. that is a really indispensable ingredient. >> my name is connie chen, and i am also from maryland. i feel that a lot of students and right now kind of have the reputation of being ignorant and indifferent to political activity. in comparison to the youth of the 1970's and 1980's, it is a stark contrast.

i am asking, how can the youth of today effectively affect change of government while practicing civil discourse. >> you guys have a leg up already because of the kind of media available. i was born in 1973. ladies and a supposed to tell our age. that is how old i am. there was not really internet until i was in college. i think i had an email when i was in college. there certainly was not facebook or twitter or any of that stuff. by virtue of just being here, you are more attuned to politics than i was at that age. you guys are already involved. president obama's election in large part was motivated by young people who took hold of the opportunities the media gives them. you are already doing it. the premise of your question i think is wrong actually, that

you are less informed and involved than those in the past. i think you are more involved. >> an important part of the reagan centennial is not just a big the stalled as a reflective of a great president and all he accomplished but to connect him to the next generation of young americans. that is what this conference is about, that we brought 102 students from all across america. academic programs going on, if you go to reagancentennial.com. we talked last night in our group by the end of this or do week we have students from all 50 states who will have friends from all 50 states. there are probably some candidates running for president who do not know people and all 50 states. that is a huge leg up from our generation. when reagan came to office there

was a little more than one fax machine in the white house. >> electric typewriter. >> and wang computers. averts facts machine i saw in 1989, the new bush administration -- the first fax machine i saw was in 1989. you are connected. and to make connections with young people in the middle east rising up over a dictatorship, wanting freedom and the ability to have this kind of thing you are participating in and make a connection between them and yourself, you know, i agree with rachel, you are already doing a lot more than you think you are doing. but how do you share this and help to proliferate the message you have here that you are learning here i think is really, really important. >> wilbur for va. this is for any of you. what about ronald reagan

possible leaks and ideals -- think enabled him to have such a close relationship with house speaker tip o'neill despite differing views? >> i will repeat one thing that i think was important. i think it was a shared ancestry. they were contemporaries, the same range. they experienced some of the same things in their lives growing up. so i think there was a basis of understanding right in there personally, a connection, that led to further deepening of their personal relationship. i don't know if you want to add to that. >> i would agree. and also written's confidence. he didn't have to prove himself -- reagan's confidence. he didn't have to prove himself. he was what was been a staunch conservative. he had given hundreds of speeches when he worked for

general electric, when he ran for governor of california. he knew who he was and he did not think he was compromising himself when he had to deal with people who had diametrically opposed views. not to say he did not ever sort of get conservatives upset or get certain factions and the republican party on one position or another, but he had it is enduring confidence that he felt like he could deal with whoever he wanted to and not be seen as a suspect. >> it is a good example of a general thing people might not realize. even in the senate, in the house, personal relationships are really important in terms of policy. michael and i -- different part is, we get along and like each other, we are much more likely to -- we would try to find a way to find agreement.

and the confirmation process, if you have john roberts going and charming everybody in the senate -- he was highly qualified, but it did not hurt at all that people like him. >> my name is kevin from illinois. >> do you think it would be a good idea for students are age to already affiliate with a certain political party or better to keep our minds open and not affiliate ourselves, that way we can discover what we want rather than a party? >> that is great. i hope we are in your trust in the republican party but we have to do that making sure we have objective communicators and policies that you can believe in. i came from a family of democrats -- all immigrants from foreign countries -- from italy to this country. i was the only one born here in my family. came up through unions and were

really aligned with the democrats. when i first registered to vote i did the same thing. but it was an out of country experience -- in 1979 living in italy with the american hostages were taken by iran, it forced me to think differently, but i started paying attention to the people running for president when i came back home in 1980. jimmy carter and ronald reagan. it took an event to sort of propelled me to pay more attention to what was being said and i began to volunteer for ronald reagan and change my registration and voting for him and it was one of the greatest decisions i made in my life. i'd been registered -- necessarily know when i was led astray what was registering for. i followed what my family did but then i began to understand and became more of a participant in the process and understanding the candidates and what they were saying.

i think you've got to pay attention to what people are saying. >> kevin is from dixon, illinois, and we have two of our students both from dixon, president reagan has a home town. we talked about the importance of remembering where you are from. president reagan was certainly true to that. he never lost the midwestern values and influence of smothers family and the community had on his life -- influence of his mother's family. how important is it for a congressman, senator, president of the united states, saying in tune and in touch with the home court, those people you not only represent about whom all but you and made you what you became as an elected leader? >> very important. the house of representatives, they go home almost every other -- every weekend. there are a lot of weeks they spend in their districts. the reason they do that is to

stay connected with their constituents, so they have their finger on the polls. so, it is very important to know where you are from, and that probably helped form the values and the way you make decisions about your politics and the way you are going to vote in a presidential election or vote in congress. it is tremendously important and you ask a lot of members of congress who have lost their seats, they might site that they have sort of gotten out of touch with their constituents. so, one way they tried to do that is to go home frequently. it is critically important. >> my name is a julianna -- adrianna from georgia. our group is very diverse and diversity is a great thing going and our nation. what can you recommend to expend our views from people with different backgrounds while still being civil and public

discourse? >> you came here -- honestly, i grew up in iowa and went to college in minnesota and went to law school and harvard and each place -- i grew up in a very small town, homogeneous, everybody dutch so much, and minnesota, more diverse, and harvard more diverse geographically and in terms of background. getting to know a lot of different people expand your horizons. you are doing it right here. you have already taken a good step. >> thank you. >> i am from huntington, west virginia. rhetoric is a powerful tool within discourse. i wanted to know what you think politicians can learn today from the way reagan used rhetoric and what the think about the way the media is using rhetoric and if you believe it is being used correctly and in correctly and

if you believe rhetoric is affecting civility. >> you still see president the candidates in the republican party trying to emulate reagan's methods. one of those things you here, you probably find it in the newspaper this week, if you tried, is republican nominees or the folks running for republican nomination talk about reagan that the optimism. that was a big strength of his. it is something that many conservatives want to emulate because it appeals to sort of our ideals of who we believe we are as a special mission. so to the degree you can be optimistic -- people are attracted to optimistic people. i think that is important for president and i think that is why even all of our presidents even in the darkest days at the end of the day tried to summon up something about our values

and our history so that they will be reassured that the united states will sort of come through. >> thank you. >> another one on this side. >> after the presidency of president roosevelt there was an amendment added that limited the president's tenure in office to two terms, two four-year terms and mainly supported by republicans. interestingly enough, the next two presidents that were capable of running for a third term were president eisenhower and presidents reagan. what affect do you think a third term for present reagan might have had on the late-1980s and early -- early 1990's of america? >> i have very strong opinions on this. i think two terms is enough. i really do. for anybody. in fact, there were some times where i was thinking it even six years is enough to do the job.

our country handles the transition very well. there are institutions within the government and all they agencies that continue the work of government. continuity of operations means even more than ever now after 9/11, and we go through exercise is to make sure our countries are safe. when you come into political jobs, you come in as president and all the appointees you bring with you, these are extraordinarily demanding jobs and they really, after a period of time, you do really burned out and you run the risk of not being as effective with new ideas and with people really following. americans get tired of things, may be way too quickly. so, i think two terms is plenty.

>> very interesting question, though. though president reagan had the support of an excellent vice- president and george h. w. bush was elected president of the nine states when president reagan could not come -- run again, was an effective president on its own. >> he had to work hard. he was his own person. it was not another four years of president reagan. although it was hard for george h. w. bush because he was so respected and loved ronald reagan. they were so close -- he was probably the most loyal vice president anyone could ask for. so, to branch out on his own and yet still benefit from this extraordinary run by an extraordinary person, ronald reagan, was a very delicate balancing act. >> their relationship is another example where contentiousness and lead to a collaboration in their position toward each other

in 1980 primaries was heated. then vice president bush supported reagan wonderfully and they became supportive of each other for about the administration. >> he said i entered into a mixed marriage when i big jeep personal aide of vice president george h. w. bush. but we've bridged the gap in 20 years. >> i am david from new hampshire. this question is far -- for any of you. what would run about reagan think of the way we conducted the war on terrorism and what changes to accomplish the goal of keeping the united states and world say from his threat? would he negotiate with these enemies of freedom?

>> i do not think he would be interested in negotiating. there is no constituency for trying to negotiate. i think president bush tried to use all elements of national power in the war are in terror -- war on terror, which is in that president reagan did. he would look at the way that we revamped and enhance the authorities in the united states. i think he would look at that favorably. president obama, as i have said, continued a lot of president bush's policies. this is still a work in progress. there is still a continuity to what we're doing as a country to fight this particular thread. >> our time has come to a close. i want to thank our panel for being with us this afternoon to

talk about ronald reagan cut the civil discourse in our country, and the importance of the executive branch working closely with the other branches of government. we want to thank our students representing all 50 states here today. we think c-span for the coverage and for the national archives for hosting us today. president reagan was a prolific diary writer. one of his handwritten diaries is here on display. i hope you have a chance to see it and i want to invite everyone here to visit the reagan library and check out the reagan centennial events for the rest of the year on our website. thank you very much for being here with us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate politics for the 2012 presidential race. information on the candidates, its winterfeed scum and facebook

updates. -- twitter feeds and facebook updates. mpaign2012.ca >> jon huntsman is expected to his run for 2012. he will make his announcement the same place that ronald reagan kicked off his campaign in 1980. on "the communicators," michael powell, now the head of the national cable and to elevate -- telecommunications association talks about his transition to the cable industry. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. on capitol hill, congress returns to legislative work tomorrow. they will consider the nomination of general david petraeus to head the cia. also more work on an economic

development bill. the changes to u.s. patent law and on offshore drilling permits. live coverage, as always come here on c-span and the senate on c-span2. >> now available, the c-span congressional directory. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information including twitter address, intermission on the white house, governors, and you can order it online at c- span.org/shop. >> on friday, white house communication director dan pfeiffer faced questions at the netroots conferece. from the convention center in minneapolis, this is about one hour. >> many of you know her as

"angry mouse" please welcome the associate daily editor of "the daily kos." [applause] >> for all of its six year history, not roots nation has brought our -- netroots nation has brought our leaders to talk about politics and progressives change. i am thrilled to be your representative on stage for another in a long line of conversations, this with the house communications director. for the past week, i have been getting feedback from the community through facebook, twitter, and blogs about your

questions for the administration. the questions i am asking today concern you and are a reflection of the issues you care about. my colleagues and i will be gathering questions from you today in real time. here is how you can participate. at each of your tables, you will find index cards and pans. you can write your questions. raise your hand, and someone will pick up your card. if you do not have cards at your table, raise your hand and we will bring you one. you can also send your questions by twitter. before i asked mr. pfeiffer to join me on stage, let me say he is here with that limitation on subject matter, so ask away. with that housekeeping out of the way, let me introduce you to the white house communications director. [applause]

thank you for joining us here with the professional left. would you like to make any introductory comments before we get started? >> of course. thanks for having me. i am excited to be here. when it was announced i would speak today, "huffington post" wrote that i was heading to the lion's den. that is probably true, in that i know there are levels of frustration with some decisions that have happened in this white house. there is frustration in the times that the pace of change has exceeded everyone's patience, including our own. i know that beyond that without the people in this room today, barack obama would not be president of the united states, people in this room who walked on doors in the -- knock on

doors in the freezing cold of iowa so that we could win that caucus, people who were in the convention to celebrate barack obama becoming the first african-american nominee in a major party. it was the people in this room who helped put together the largest grass-roots campaign in history so we could win that election, and who helped us to do a lot of things in the white house -- help us pass health part -- health care. it means 30 million americans are going to get health care. it is a very important thing. people in this room want us to bring an end to the war in iraq and to do things like repeal don't ask, don't tell. i do that not to get credit or wax nostalgic, but to be grateful and know that is the foundation for some of the big fights we have coming up. we have seen in recent weeks

with the plan paul ryan put forward and the performance republican presidential candidates had onstage on monday night a very different vision for this country than the people in this room and the president has. it is one that includes massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and in medicare as we know it, privatizing social security, repealing health care, appealing don't ask, don't tell, and doing all of those things. we are going to have a lot of fights together and i hope we can work together. we are going to have the lot of battles in congress as we fight to make sure the republican vision of this country does not become reality in the coming weeks and months. my hope today is that i can have an open and honest conversation. if there is a thing you are frustrated by, i will address -- i will address those and tried to give you the best understanding for why he made

the decisions. i look forward to having those conversations. >> thank you again for joining us. did you bring your long form birth certificate with you? >> i promise i was going in this country, even if not everyone will believe it. >> we were soliciting questions all week from the community. one of the main questions that came up over and over again is about jobs. i just wanted to review and comment we got from broke in seattle. what does the president planned to do about people like me, who have been unemployed for more than three years and are not getting unemployment benefits? does he have a jobs plan for people who are over 50 and already have multiple college degrees, other than telling us to go back to community college to train for jobs that are not there? what jobs can you train for when nobody over 50 can get an

interview? we have run through our savings and for a 1 k plans -- 401k plans and do not have relatives. what can you do for us? what do you save for a book in seattle -- for brooke in seattle? >> her story is not unique. the president gets these letters every day. they are tragic. they are what he thinks about every morning and every night. if we could wave a magic wand and fix this, we would do it. we need to do several things. we need to keep growing the economy. that is going to include doing things like investing in infrastructure, investing in education, research and development, high-tech jobs of the future like bioscience, things like that. it means doing things sitting in congress now that could help people, which includes passing

an infrastructure bill, which has bipartisan support and leverage is private capital to get structural things done. it requires making sure that when we are going to have a pending fight on unemployment benefits in this country we work together to make sure the republicans who have been fighting us do not get their way. what we have to do for everyone is to get the economy moving on a large scale. there is no question that with a republican majority in the house this is very challenging. >> earlier this month, you wrote on the white house blog that the president wanted to tell you that we will not rest until every american who is looking for a job can find one. does this mean we can expect a jobs bill from the president? >> the president will support a number of initiatives to create jobs that have not been acted on yet, including the infrastructure bank, a proposal

that would put people in jobs creaking in national wireless plan, significant advancements in clean energy and infrastructure, additional tax incentives for small business so people can start businesses and hire people like brooke, and there will be more ideas on that front. we are going to work with democrats and republicans in congress and see what we can get past. >> the president is not going to be proposing a jobs bill? >> the president will continue to propose initiatives to create jobs. there will be more initiatives. whether that will be in one bill or a series of different proposals -- there will be initiatives. >> with a 91% unemployment rate, why wouldn't we have a jobs bill? [applause] >> i think it is a false thing to say we do not have a jobs bill. we have a number of bills in

we are going to have additional ideas, proposals to create jobs. and proposals for things that we can actually get done. challenging where republicans are. gosh what of the things that keeps coming up from the administration, i understand it is difficult from an obstruction of the party and some democrats that are not as supportive as you like them to be. it is hard to get things done that the president talked about when he was running for the presidency. is it impossible to get these things done unless he has a super majority in the house and the senate? he said it was next to impossible to get these things done. what difference does it make whether we reelect him? >> i will give you several reasons why it makes a difference.

it is challenging. we have the historic amount of things that we got done. was that everything that we got done? i know. but we passed a recovery act, a health care act, don't ask don't tell. >> you are still firing people for being gay. [applause] >> in the historic vote, congress repealed the law. nobody thought that it would pass through congress. >> when will you stop kicking a gay people out of the military? [applause] >> that bill has a certification process in place that is close to being finished. >> when can we expect it? >> as soon as we can possibly do it.

an orderly transition. >> speaking of the military, the white house released a report on libya. the president did not need congressional authority to go and libya because u.s. operations do not involve the same fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces. and they don't involve u.s. ground troops. it is a little more that we don't need the authority to do this. the united states sent a few military advisers to vietnam. the war was over, how do we know that libya will turn into a bigger war? -- and that libya won't turn into a bigger war? >> holly did it in a very limited way, it was done in a multilateral prohibition with an american president. it is the opposite of what we have done in iraq.

we only would have done if out of those circumstances because we could not have forces marching where they threaten to go door to door. we had a choice. we could either let that massacre happened, or we could do something about it. now we are heading in the right direction. i am not a lawyer or an expert in the war powers act. the way that this is set up with the very limited role, we're primarily providing answers for nato forces. this is consistent with what we did. there is a 60 day provision in the war powers act and we are not in violation of that. it is not helpful to our efforts and when members of congress,

particularly the republican leadership play politics with this. and this and example of politics. in 1999, the speaker thought that the war powers, he thought that it was unconstitutional and ho invoking in this way was not hellhole. >> of the republican attacks on the president from the left are a little disingenuous at this point. i think it raises an important question, should the president, and the president be able to wage war without the authority of congress? >> you should be involved in limited supporting roles in the military conflicts like this one. u.s. troops are not engaged in acts of hostility. we're playing a supporting

limited role. >> you are saying the you're guaranteeing us that this is not going to become a bigger war? >> he made a guarantee, absolutely. >> i would like to ask you about a different kind of war, a war that i am particularly concerned about. the war on women. [applause] we are seeing an unprecedented number of attacks on women at the state and federal level, anything from contraception to health care to food stamps. drug-testing, women receiving welfare in florida. women in congress are talking openly about a war on women. i want to know if the president agrees with nancy pelosi and the new chairwoman. is there a war on women? >> there is a sustained effort from republicans at the federal

and state level to undo a lot of the progress we have done. the most prominent example was the effort to defund planned parenthood a few months ago. the president at that point told the house republicans that if they wanted to do it, they would have to shut down the government over it. they signed into law an effort that would illegally defund planned parenthood. the president is very concerned about all of these efforts and the ones from the federal level. the president will do that. >> we saw that when it comes down to it, for the larger issue, for example, the president said that accepting the amendment that punishes poor

women in this country was unacceptable status quo and we had put that aside for the bigger picture. is there a war on women? >> let's talk about health care for a second. [laughter] amendment was the lot of the land. >> is renewed every year. >> if we tried to repeal it, there it be no health reform. that was the choice. it was a very simple choice. you have two options. there was no health reform, that is the to as you have to make. if you have a question about -- war on women is not a phrase

that the president has used. nancy pelosi has. there is no question that the very same things that concern nancy pelosi concern the president in the same way. >> he talked a lot about the efforts on planned parenthood. i am sure he will speak about it as well. >> president obama carry a 11 by a 56-43 margin. in 2010, democratic women stayed home or voted republican. democratic women that were the majority of the country and the majority of the party, we feel like we are under assault. does the president think he can win reelection without those women that did not show up for

him in 2010? >> of course not. >> and does he intend to do any pro-active steps to get the women in this room, meat, the women in this country to turn out in 2012? >> the paycheck fairness act, the president is a big supporter of and a big push in congress. >> ok. we have a question from clutter. what are the lines you will not cross while negotiating with the gop regarding medicare and social security? >> on both of those, the president will do nothing that will cut benefits, privatize the program, or change the nature of the program.

there is no question that both of those programs need to be strengthened. it is certainly not a driver of our deficit, same with medicare. there things we can do that was done on the affordable care act. like what the president proposed in the speech he gave a few months ago that will deal with the provider side, not the benefit side of medicare. he is opposed to anything in 100 miles of what the republicans and paul ryan have put forward. >> not raising the age limit? >> we will make sure that however we strengthen it is done in a way that does not change the fundamental nature of the program. i will not have a negotiation with republicans here with you, but what i can promise you is,

the president will strengthen medicare and he will fight every effort to change the nature of the program or end it or privatize its. >> i want to follow up on this issue of compromising with republicans, because it is the scene that came up quite a bit. i looked at what senator barack obama wrote in 2005 talking about how you deal with an obstructionist party. this is what he said. whenever they are wrong or dishonest, he should face those clearly and repeatedly. we should respond quickly and forcefully. truth as we best know it will be the hallmark of our response. here is my question. republicans have been very effective at promoting their own agenda.

with no respect for tone or true. it seems to have been fairly effective, actually. at what point will the president responded quickly and forcefully with truth as the hallmark of his response rather than concern for the proper tone? >>, the president has and will continue to respond to republicans. if the argument is that the town doesn't matter, it does matter because there are a lot of people in this room and in washington that are very partisan and have a lot of anger towards the other party. i am like that a lot of the time. there are also a lot of people in this country that are less engaged in politics and are turned off by the partisan back and forth that is dominating so

much in washington. the president was elected because he wanted to transcend it. if you don't fight for what you believe in. he did that in the midterm alexians. >> they did not work out very well for him. >> that is not why. >> a lot of lies, ugly tone, and they did pretty well on that in 2010. that does not like they will be changing that strategy in 2012. will it not work for them? >> i don't think it was the best strategy for democrats to stoop to the things that they do. that is not how we won in thailand that -- 2008 or how we will win in 2012. >> the president also says we should be able to agree on certain principles. he is open to any good idea

regardless of where it comes from. can you name a good deal of the republicans have proposed? >> i will give you one. the individual mandate in the health care bill. a republican idea. the tax credits for small businesses that were passed as part of the recovery act or since then. some of those were republican ideas. there are ideas from the middle part of the republican part, those would be a mistake to just discard every idea simply because it came from a republican. >> ok. does the president still think that bipartisanship is possible? >> the question isn't whether it is possible, the question is whether it is necessary. there will not be a law that gets to the president's desk

that does not have some measure of republican support. that is the nature of washington right now. if you want to do something that will actually help them, the republican support. do we wish we could do this on our own? that is frankly not an option given or the country or the economy is. >> of the concern about compromising, it means betraying the fundamental value of the democratic party, like extending the bush tax cuts that the president said was a bad idea and is bad for the economy. we don't support it. he made that compromise. >> this is a perfect example. there were two choices in this. a bill extending only the middle

class tax cuts that the president would have signed could not pass the united states senate. the choices were to either extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthy along with the middle class tax cut for the tax cuts that were passed in the recovery act, which led to the poorest americans, or you could let them all expired. the president believes that it would not have been the right thing to do or the progressive thing to do to give a massive tax increase to the middle class and working americans simply to make a point about the bush tax cuts. those are the only two options. >> of the tax cuts have been horrible for our economy. >> what do you say if she ends up with a tax increase?

>> i don't work in the white house, i don't have the -- have to answer the question. >> but the president does. >> a question from charles in minneapolis. why hasn't the administration used the black press to get the message out, the successes that are large or small? >> we have tried to do that. the president spends a fair amount of time with members of the african-american media. he is on shows like steve harvey at of regular basis. we will continue to try to do that. >> a question from texas of afghanistan. in the latest poll, 74 percent of americans want all or some troops removed from afghanistan. " will it take to get through to the white house that we want the war ended?

>> when the president announced his afghanistan strategy, he said that we will begin transitioning the end of the war in july of 2011. you will hear an announcement from the president about the size and scope of that transition, how we will begin withdrawing troops. >> ok. >> be you have a follow-up? >> how we will change gears a little. >> he wrote i favor legalizing same-sex marriages. after the proposition 8 decision came in california, the president does oppose same-sex marriage. his position has evolved to being more supportive of civil rights to less supportive of civil rights. is the president going to of all the again and get back to

supporting civil rights of gay marriage? [applause] >> a couple things on that. the best way to do this would be too -- i will paraphrase and answer what the president gave. >> i have his answer right here. i favor legalizing same-sex marriages and i will prohibit efforts. >> it was asked by someone else, not the president. >> it was a fake questionnaire? >> the president's position has been consistent. >> you are saying that this is a fake questionnaire? >> this was litigated in the campaign. >> i would like to clarify it out. there are people concerned about this issue. the president has never favored it? >> his position is that he is

against it. the country is evolving on this, and he is evolving. some of the folks in this room or at the white house meeting with the president. the president said that it is clear the country is moving on this. it is because he has friends, staffers who are in committed accommodate partnerships that are great people, great partners, great friends, great parents, and he is evolving. when thatll you today evolution will continue, but that is where he is. people have pushed him on this, and he believes he should continue to push him on that. >> if he doesn't manage to of over most of the country is heading before 2012, why should gays and lesbians vote for him?

>> i think because this president has been the most progressive president on issues we have had. >> that is a pretty low bar. we have made progress on benefits for same-sex couples. this is a huge, important issue for everyone. it is a big deal to them. i would not begrudge a single person who feels strongly about this for being upset with the president on that. if someone else as president, all of the of the things i talked about are all going to go away. >> we have another question from the audience. why didn't president obama go to wisconsin to support the workers alike he promised he

would do in the 2008 campaign? [applause] >> he has spoken publicly about this about supporting their efforts and white the governor, what he wanted to do was disingenuous and using a budget deficit as a way to play politics against his political adversaries. >> will he be going to wisconsin to show his support? >> when he is in wisconsin, i am sure he will support them. he will be with those workers every step of the way. >> i want to ask you a question on emigration. the majority leader said congress has spent more time on emigration than any other issue and was committed to getting the act passed.

it didn't. we have seen this anti-immigrant legislation passed in alabama, georgia, arizona. what can the president do without legislation to address emigration? gosh states like arizona where there are laws that violate civil rights, the justice department can take action to stop a lot of the most offensive provisions. it is still working its way through the arizona court. it is working its way to make sure the focus of enforcement is on criminals. that is where the focus of the energy is. you have a very limited capacity without changing the law to deal with the very real and very tragic situation of millions of americans living in the shadows. >> there is no executive order

you can possibly issue? >> it will be helpful around some of the processes and procedures. but the president of the united states cannot stop enforcing the law. that is not an option available to him. >> if the white house fails to get a payroll tax going, what will happen? >> there will be a payroll tax cut or some other measure like that, either as a part of the process if it heads in that direction, or he has got to put a lot of pressure on republicans. will they try to block this? and put a tax increase in place for millions of americans. the infrastructure bank, there will be a lot of pressure on republicans. you will hear more from manhattan in the summer and fall

about this. >> will he be able to revisit the bush tax cuts? they would try to get the bush tax cuts expired. how will he focus on that at all any negotiation having to do with the debt ceiling or any of these issues? >> when he signed the extension of the bush tax cut, and will include an income tax credit. he said that he would never extend them again. they will come to him in december 31, 2012. he will make sure that they are never extended again. there will be some things that will have to be a bipartisan bill and my suspicion is that it will be non-starters.

i suspect for the republicans, the bush tax cuts will be there. >> when the tax cuts have been and were extended to much to the disappointment of probably everybody in this room, the president explained that we have been taken hostage. and we really didn't have a choice. have we been taken hostage of anything else we should know about right now? >> being president, you don't get good choices. the good choices get help elsewhere. the ones that get to the president are hard choices. there were two choices. everyone in america gets a tax increase or extend the bush tax cuts. i would challenge anyone to explain why it would either be good for the economy or good for the people in this room a, the president can care most deeply about it.

>> i understand, what upset people is that the president said he had to do something that fundamentally violates what democrats believe and was very bad for the economy to do. he explained it was because we had unknowingly been taken hostage. i want to know if we have been taken hostage in any other situation where the president might be going back on a fundamental democratic principle and will explain to us that we have been taken hostage again. >> if that comes up, i will be sure to tell you first. what is also a progressive democratic value that we care about is tax cuts for the middle and working class. not tax increases. that is the principle he would have violated if he led the tax cuts expire. forget what macro economists

said, it would be devastating for people struggling to get a massive tax increase. that is the situation that was before the president. >> i would like to talk for a moment about the 2012 election and the republican nominees. i am sure the president looks forward to having a very serious debate. i want to know, between us, palin-bachmann 2012 is a no- brainer? >> it would be perfectly consistent with a vast majority of the republican party today. >> are you rooting for anybody in particular? >> having watched the debate the other night, parts of the debate, there was a hockey game on that night, you essentially

have a series of messages offering a very broad plan for america. tax cuts for the wealthy, and in medicare, repealing don't ask, don't tell. and so, there'll be a big debate about which direction the country is going and there will be very stark differences between what the president is talking about and what paul riot and the republicans are talking about. everyone understands that it is worse when we have a republican in the white house. it is worse when they are in charge. but a consistent theme that came up in discussions of what people wanted to know is that they feel really disappointed about where the president has been on issues and representing true,

fundamental democratic party issues. we are all democrats and we understand the importance of making sure democrats are empowered. they may not turn out the same way. show up on election day, but i will not donate money. >> do you need us? >> absolutely. >> what is in it for us? >> there is much that was accomplished in the first 2.5 years. there's much more that needs to be done. we can either work together to continue that work and finish what we started in 2008 or can be relegated back to the sidelines and see what a republican president with potentially republican majority in at least one house does to this country. we had that starting in 2000 and

get it up with massive deficits and the war in iraq, and violations of our civil liberties, and corporate interests like wall street running rampant through washington. that is the choice. this president's is as committed to the ideals he ran on today as when he was in springfield in 2007. he has fought as hard as he could. washington is a hard and frustrating place. we do this under tremendously challenging circumstances. we will keep fighting for them. on some of the things that you care about and he cares about, i promise you he is as frustrated as if you are. we have not been able to get it done. >> he seems to be frustrated with us, or at least members of his administration have been. i thank you for being here and acknowledging us. but i'll ask again, what is in

it for us in a second term? what big ideas are we going to see? will he return to some fundamental progressive values instead of focusing mostly on what he can get done with republicans? >> i will do that, i -- but i want to address what you said about being frustrated with our critics. >> we are also his supporters. >> yes, and at times, we have become frustrated with our critics, but it is not all of our critics. when glenn beck and john boehner and mitt romney attacked us, we expect that. when our friends attack as, we

get frustrated. we want you to push us. we absolutely do. the president comes from a tradition of grassroots organizing, community organizing. a lot of the pushing that you do on a national level he did on a local level in chicago. but when you retire did you think you're doing the right thing under circumstances, and the people you care about most are attacking you, that is frustrating. it does not mean it is not the right thing to do. >> we understand how that feels. >> absolutely. everyone gets frustrated. it does not mean -- it comes from a good place. we care about the same things that you do and we want you to believe that we are sincere and getting does done. >> i would say to the president, right back at you. another question from the audience. obama madepresident

more recess appointments, particularly to the federal reserve, and elizabeth warren? [applause] >> i believe that you cannot recess of. to the federal reserve. but we have made a number of them. if we have to do more, we absolutely will. it is something for the president. as it relates to the appointment of elizabeth warren, she has done amazing work of fighting of vigorous republican opposition trying to undermine her every step of the way. the president is considering to move that forward. she is one under consideration, and we will have an announcement on what we will do their sen. >> we will look forward to that announcement. on climate change, why does the

president not taking on more of a leadership role on climate change? will the president do everything possible to support the epa against efforts from republican governors who are trying to fight federal air quality enforcement? >> the president is obviously being pushed hard in the last congress to try to get a cap and trade legislation, and it could not get through the senate. which was unfortunate. it shows how tough a piece of legislation this is. even with 59 democratic senators, there was significant opposition. it was not particularly close to happening. he will continue to push for it. over time, he thinks that we can do that. as it relates to -- >> does that mean before the election or is that a second term goal?

>> if pekin get it passed in congress tomorrow, he would absolutely do that. but that is not going to happen. it could not pass when we had a democratic house and it is even more challenging now. that is the reality. as it relates to the epa, the president has repeatedly threatened to veto attempts to undermine legislation that would take away the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. administrator jackson is doing great work protecting our air and water. he continues to work with her on that and supports her on that. >> another question from the audience cheered when will president obama keep his promise to close guantanamo? [applause] >> this is something where everyone in this room can help us. >> what can we do for you? >> call members of congress, democrats and republicans, who

have supports efforts blocking that right now. including a democratic senate, and many democrats and house have voted for legislation that prevents us from transferring people that we want to bring to trial in the united states to try out. we're completely limited by bipartisan congressional limitations on this. we have dramatically reduced the number of prisoners there due to transfers to other countries and bringing some here to trial. but right now there are legal prohibitions to prevent us from doing it. >> you have mentioned a couple of times that it is very difficult for the president to get things done when he does that have people in his own party willing to support him. when bush was president, he had a minority in congress for a lot of that time.

the power of the executive order he used quite a bit. he was able to get a lot done. why is it so much harder for president obama to get things done? [applause] >> a lot of the things that bush wanted to do he did not get done. privatizing social security, 41. some of them were bipartisan, but the tax cuts, they would not have passed without a significant proportion from democrats. a lot of the democrats who may oppose us on some things, they have supported president bush on those things. >> so president bush is better than by partisanship than president obama? >> i'm not saying that. there were democrats that support -- that come from very red states. and that is important.

but that means that sometimes there are people -- democrats that will support republican issues. either we beat them in 2006 or 2008 or the tea party beat them in 2010 by primary in them. that is the challenge there. >> maybe i am not that clear on it, but is there anything the president can do without congress on any golf on any of the areas that we've talked about? anything without getting all of the democrats to behave. republicans will not. they have made that clear. they will vote no. what can he do to accomplish some of these goals? >> there are a lot of things we have done that way. we have removed the bush ban on

stem cells that way. we have to change federal benefits for same-sex couples that way. through executive action, and there will be of the things that he can do. bottle of the things that you're talking about here, climate change, immigration reform, those are things that require legislation. >> another question on twitter. what is worse, loss of tax cuts or medicare benefits? >> the answer is both. we have made sure that we will get a tax increase and we are abiding republican efforts to reduce their medicaid and cut their food stamps. as painful and messy as the five over funding the government this year was, those are things the president fought to protect her does the things republicans

wanted to cut. that is the debate in congress, and the president focused on making sure that while we have to cut spending and we have to reduce our deficits, those are things we have to do, but we have to do it in a balanced approach and not on the backs of the most vulnerable americans. >> that seems to be happening a lot at the state level. we see it happen with some of the things that we had to compromise on. and this is the question that people are asking a lot. a tax increase of a couple hundred bucks a year, isn't that better than slashing all the other resources that they depend on for their health care? >> it does not have to be an either/or choice there. i cannot speak to every state capital around the country, but there are families that are barely getting by. $200 a year will matter a lot.

we do not have to do that. states may make different decisions about how they balance their state budgets, and that is up to them to do. on the federal level, we do not need to do either one of these things to balance our budget. >> i read talking. memos, daily cos, greg sargent on "washington post," and i read a lot of people here. and i would say, as challenging as it sometimes makes my job, the democratization of the media that on any given day, any

person with an internet connection to make a real impact on the country, it is something that has been very powerful and important for our country. >> we only have a couple of minutes left. here is a question i want to get your reaction, you're going back to washington. you're going to be talking to people in the white house. and it will ask our things on the progress of left. what are you going to tell the white house about how the leftist feeling right now? >> it will not surprise a lot of them. there are a lot of people in this room who care about the president, support the president, a lot of the things that the president does, are very concerned about the direction republicans want to take us in this country, but are frustrated at the pace of change. [applause]

and i promise you, the president shares that frustration. if the cut, if it was in his power to do, if we could wake up tomorrow and have immigration reform, climate change done, that we could have the employee free choice act and things that he talked on on the campaign, he would absolutely do that in a second. but we have huge challenges, and it is not just that we have obstructionist republicans and recalcitrant members and our own party, we are also dealing with an economy that has been in crisis for a very long time. it did not just art in 2008. it is a tremendously worse. he came in when the country was on the brink of a great depression. he is governing in very challenging times. is someone that have taught to every day for the last four

years and i promise you that he is the same person who you remember from the campaign trail, the same person from springfield and des moines, caring passionately about all the progressive ideals that we talked about today, and he has fought for them the best that he could from the bottom of this art, and he will continue to do that. >> would you suggest that he made do more for us? >> i will say that we need to continue to have a conversation with this group of people and the people watching around the country, probably on the computers, some on c-span, and that you are very important part of the coalition that got him here and an important part of a coalition that stop republicans from doing things like ending medicare as we do it, and that ensures that this president is reelected. he knows that, i know that, and we want to make sure that you guys know that.

>> he came before when he was a senator. can we expect to see him next year? >> when are you having? >> it will be in the summer, though we do not know what city. >> i will talk to him about it. his schedule is challenging and i suspect it will be more challenging next year. but we should absolutely talk about it and maybe we can make it work. >> that would be great. after all this is a professional left. thank you so much for joining us. t think you got the message right? [applause] not too bad. >> thank you, everyone. >> thank you ver

a new website for the 2012 presidential race. facebook updates from candidates. visit us at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> former u.s. ambassador jon huntsman is expected to announe this where, doing ronald reagan kicked off his campaign. and michael powell talks about telecom issues and the trnasitiansition from govermento the calbble industry.

senators will consider the nomination of david petreaus. the house requires speedier decisions on oil permits. >> i feel deeply honored to be nominated. the 20th director of the cia. >> learn more about david petraeus. every c-span program since 1987, washington, your way. >> the supreme court has filed for walm-artart on the sex

discrimination suit, and disagreed about how that was the case. there were too many women in too many jobs. walmart could face billions in damages. two women say they will follow claims on their own. here are the oral arguments in the case. this runs one hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we'll hear arguments first in wal-mart stores vs. dukes. >> may it please the court. the mandatory nationwide

class is improperly notified. they failed to cohesian -- and etary relieve, for the class. because the claims hinge on the delegation of descretion -- they cannot meet the cohesive requirements. this is similar to the opposite of the cohesive claims of the class. the common policy is either neutral, to be discriminatory,

or they are affirmatively nondiscriminatory. >> i suppose if corporate headquarters had learned that the subjective decision making of the delegation of the decision making, the decentralized process -- >> this could be attributed to that policy? >> if there was a pattern at a particular store? >> every week begin report of an allegation of gender discrimination. at some time will they said that is the policy of the centralized decision making that is leading to these problems?

>> i did not think that this would rise to a common policy affect in the same way. companies will look through out the reasons for discrimination. the store has so many units, and these are simply not typical. if the plaintiffs stand before the court, 500,000 or 1 million people may stand in judgment. that would represent all of those different people, and with the individual decision makers who will exercise their discretion in a way it there is no proof. >> the city is not liable for the constitutional issues.

do you think that we could use this as an analog to determine if there is a common question here? >> if a company had a policy of discrimination, as others here were the policy is against discrimination, soft patterns around the company, and because of gender they continue to allow the patterns to exist -- they have shown the delivered in difference to the violation. would this be the policy? >> this a different question under a different claim. the question is if the company was allowing the discrimination to occur because they wanted discrimination. there is no evidence of that.

>> the numbers have been left out so far. the company gets reports month after month showing that women are disproportionately passed over for promotion and there is a gap in the pay between men and women. some responsibility on the company to say -- this is discrimination at work, and isn't there an obligation to stop this? >> there is the obligation to make certain that there are no wage gaps. but if you look at what the plaintiffs have pointed to, these are completely different

issues with the gender gap at the stores among comparable people. their argument is that individual decision makers were making these decisions and this had a bad effect. but they have not shown a pattern across the map. they can go to gather to point to the disparity, >> the expert did this regionally, not for each store. and number two, that he performed and this was affirmed by the circuit court any number of controlled variable comparisons and job history and job ratings, and he found the disparity could not be explained by any normal variables.

and that this was much higher than the 10 competitors of wal- mart and their labour force. what is special about this, and why is this kind of analysis inadequate to show the policy of some sort. >> simply estimating the regional results -- the statistics go more to the merits. we have stronger merits of responding to those arguments. >> ultimately, you may be the winner, and find that this analysis is fatally flawed. but on the basis of your

expert, who was discounted because the analysis was based on an acceptable premises, this may have not been enough after rigorous analysis. this is upsetting the factual basis. >> the district court found that this was not the stage for discrimination between the two. there needs to be a choice. and when you talk about the discretionary decision, there has to be some demonstration that there is a common effect to the system. our testimony showed that there was no disparity at 90% of the stores. and we had to show that there

was a miraculous occurrence at every store and the evidence does not show this. and there is less a problem on the cohesion analysis as each of the plaintiffs have very different stories. one was terminated for disciplinary violations. one had a problem after a motion and was promoted. -- demoted. they had to show that they were treated differently than people in situations just like them. the same supervisors and apartments. >> and word you have the standard of this, with the district court at the certifications to ask whether if there was a companywide policy and a standard that would be applied on the merits.

>> the plaintiffs did not have to prove that there was actually policy discrimination, but there was a policy that was common to link all of these individuals by location together. and they argue that a common policy is giving tens of thousands of individuals the discretion to do whatever they want. >> i think that there are to met was that the policy was of complete subject of the, to allow gender discrimination to come into these decisions. and they suggested that this was a policy, using subjective factors only when making it one of decisions. that is exactly the policy that is here.

>> if this was entirely suggested this would be a different issue. there were some general company standards that were under control. that is a discretion was guided by this policy. >> i am a little bit confused about how this is not a policy in a title 7 pattern and practice with this impact? >> in washington, they did say decisionmaking could be challenged. said there o'connor would need to be a specific practice within that policy. title 7 does not govern policy.

subjectivity is not a practice or policy. wal-mart had the combination of objective and subjective standards. people with a great personality will push up. >> who -- there was a case in this was related to middle management. this was our objective of in the and there was a so-called total person test.

the idea was not that complicated, most people prefer themselves. it was found that the application was a violation of title 7. it is not suggested that you have an expert, and the expert says that the gender bias can creep into an issue. and people tend to feel comfortable about -- around people like themselves. >> this of the example of something that may be a practice inside the policy, with the

particular decision making unit, and we have had different results and people could have a much stronger case for a class- action lawsuit. this is the glue that is supposed to hold this together. you could not tell the stereotyping was happening, at all. the question is whether we can assume that every decision maker happened in the same area, with the same interest in the same injury. excepting all the proof, the answer is no. and that is why there is no cohesion that is necessary. >> this suggests that the

plaintiffs would have to show discrimination in every individual case. this has never been law. all but the plaintiffs have to demonstrate is that there is a policy of this on the whole. there is discrimination against women. not all the women were discriminated against. >> we're not arguing that a plaintiff would have to come forward to show that every class member was discriminated against. there will have to be proof of discrimination -- and it is not ,isputed that wal-mart's policy this was rigorously enforced and this was anti-discrimination. the other major problem here is that the district judge said

that wal-mart would not be able to put on their individual self- defense. women would not be able to come forward with this process. they could come into court to argue that there would be compensated. the plaintiffs are trying to cut off half of the framework which is fundamental to due process because title 7 states very clearly the only the clearly discriminatory may recover. >> what happened to the claim of an individual woman who is part of this class, if this class prevails. >> if this prevails, it will be resolved in this manner. >> which should be eligible for

back pay and other damages as well. maintainaintiff's these damages for themselves. . >> woman with these damages be able to follow this? >> this is part of the core facts in the case. >> she could not have received notice or have the opportunity to opt out. >> that is part of the discrimination. they have to be looked at under rule 30 -- 23-b-3. this was for the growing edge of the law and the individual monetary claims that were at stake. the language of this rule speaks

with conjunctive rumors. >> and this could not be certified under the rule, is this correct? >> the plaintiffs will not be able to satisfy those provisions. >> they will circumvent the superiority and the predominance. >> if their claim is, as they stated, they are still -- they're looking for relief against the discriminatory impact, for the pattern and practice. would this have value and when this value be standing alone without the damages and the components. to see the plaintiff's coming in, there is the presumption that discrimination has affected them, and the burden will go to wal-mart to show that there was not a discriminatory reason.

>> they could certainly benefit from the injunction. the problem is that the individual damage overwhelms this. >> even if they did this, why not take this out of the question, if monetary damages have enough common fax toward certification? >> some courts have done this, under these standards, and this can raise other complications. they are seeking punitive damages. this is certainly a pol -- this is certainly a policy, that is so individualized. >> address these separately for me. tell me why this could not exist

only with the inductive release. if you concede that this can, there are the monetary components of this, and i know the dispute on whether this is equitable relief, why this cannot be separated out and put into this. >> the injunctive relief plan still has problems with cohesion, adequacy, and commonality. this includes at least 545 store managers. the women who are helping to be in the class, there are former employees to cut across everything and there would still

leave these cohesion problems because of the nature of the case of the plaintiffs. the common policy is for discretion. >> i thought that the district judge said that the absent class members would get notice, and they would have the opportunity to opt out. so a member of the class it wants to go for all. -- compensation could opt out of this. >> this is limited to the punitive damage claim. the ninth circuit said under their ruling, this would simplify things because there would not need to be noticed and the opportunity to opt out.

this is to bind people based on a balancing test, a judgment to which they were not a party. we talked about a fundamental rule, that individual is not bound to a subject where they are not a party. this is why we think that this needs to be the rule for individual monetary relief. >> are you talking about any monetary relief? you are claiming a i assume that this means equitable relief? they have described the test without the predominant questions, they used the incidental tests. what is wrong with this? >> that is much better because the plaintiffs have walked away from the tests that were applied in the lower court.

they never contended they could meet the individual damages test. this was only the automatic back pay that would qualify. this is an individualized. >> this is the incidental test as appropriate to the question of when monetary damages for dominate or do not. >> the talk about conjunctive relief. the only ambiguity is from the advisory committee. and as this court has said, we do not legislate history to create ambiguity. the other part of the advisory committee makes it clear that the draft groups were concerned about the antecedence, and i think the drafters of rule 23 would have been shocked if they knew that this case, which

involved millions of claims for individualized monetary relief were sought to be involved in this class. it is far superior that this would be closer to a bright line rule, and i would like to go back to what i said earlier about the individuals taking away the rights of wal-mart and the absent class members. this is a ninth circuit since the cold sampling method, and the plaintiffs do not defend this. this is the cornerstone of the ninth circuit and there ruling, with how many people may have been hurt, divvying up money based on that. the district court including the fundamental teamsters hearing,

would allow the presumption that the seminary -- district -- discrimination had occurred, and the individual could show them -- to show this on individual basis. this really shows some of the core flaws in this case. >> what if the class does not prevail. this is part individual woman from a particular wal-mart to bring in the same claims? >> there is a presumption in the world of class action. one is that class action is always good, and the bigger the better, and none of those presumptions can be counted on. if there are damage claims, if they tried to bring a case to pay the promotion, there would be significant questions.

>> they would not be precluded on the individual discrimination. >> that would pose a different question. >> the reason they could discriminate is because of discrimination -- >> there be a problem of collateral. >> do we have time for a rebuttal? >> if it will please the court, this follows from the teamsters, with the theories of discrimination. there is no requirement to have a formal policy of discrimination.

>> and what with the injunction look like in this case? >> they would direct wal-mart to provide detailed criteria with which to make promotion decisions, job-related in a way that has not been provided until now. they would hold managers accountable for decisions that they have made. they have the oversight of these promotion decisions and as the company did have information with a decision. this did not effectively monitor a lot of these problems. >> we have the decision making process that is not a legal --

illegal. >> we have several thousand stores. how many examples of abuse of the subject of discrimination delegation need to be shown before you can say that this flows from the policy. there are thousands of stores and you may have some bad apples. >> we have some examples in the record. >> how many of these to you need to have? you say that the person here at the store has been discriminatory? this cannot be enough to support this theory. >> the teamsters -- the court had before them about 40 examples. in order for a practice of

liability, if this is the case, that have disparities that were creating an inference of discrimination. >> is it true that the disparity is less than the national average. >> i do not know if this is a fair comparison. >> this is for the people in retail. they do not make pay decisions because the comparison is relevant, between men and women of wal-mart. not the general population that includes railroad workers and all other kinds of people.

this is not the appropriate comparison. >> what is the policy that they have adopted under this theory? >> our theory is that wal-mart provided to its managers unchecked discretion in the way that this decision was addressed. this was used to pay women less than men, who are doing the same job at the same time. even though those women had more seniority and higher performance, there were provided fewer opportunities for promotion. >> your complaint goes in two directions. arkansas -- their headquarters of everything that is going on. and now you say the supervisors have too much discretion. i am not certain with the

unlawful policy is. >> there is no more inconsistency within their own personnel procedures. the company provides to its managers this discretion. we're not attacking every part of the promotion decisions. the district court has found parts of the promotion process that are totally discretionary. and there is no guidance whatsoever about making these decisions. with respect to the discretion, every store -- the managers are provided with the same level of discretion. but there is a strong corporate culture with respect to the practices we are challenging and all of the respects, and the purpose of this is to make certain that in the stores,

contrary to what wal-mart has said about these facilities, that the managers will be informed by the values the company provides, the managers in training, -- >> this is a form of different treatment because they're making this based on gender, and we have evidence to the stereotyping evidence, that we have seen with the historical results. >> on the one hand he said the problem is that they were utterly subjective, and on the other, you say that there is a strong corporate culture that guides all of this. this is either the individual supervisors are left on their own, or else there is a strong corporate culture that tells them what to do. >> there is a broad discretion given the managers, but they do not make these decisions in a vacuum. they do this in a company.

>> and there is no discretion? >> they are given this discretion, but are informed by the company without exercise this discretion. >> if someone tells you how to exercise discretion you do not have discretion. >> the bottom line is that they did not and the results show this. there was a disparity in every region. >> what can you do about the unchallenged facts, that the central company had a policy -- an announced policy against sex discrimination, so this was not totally subjective at the managerial level. you make these hiring decisions but you don't make them on the basis of gender. was this a central policy of the company? >> this was not the policy that was effectively communicated to

the managers. >> how was disestablished? >> we have evidence of, at the institute where every manager has to be trained before they become a manager, there is a response to the question, why are there so few women in management. the answer was that men are more aggressive in seeking advancement. this is a stereotypical statement, provided to everyone going to the management training program, and they make this discretion and make promotions. >> they do this to discriminate on the basis of sex? >> how could this possibly cause them to intentionally discriminate on the basis of sex? >> they have an intention to take sex into account, in making their decisions. they apply stereotype that women

are less aggressive when it comes to assessing their suitability for promotion. >> this is just an assessment of why the percentage is different, not only at wal- mart, but throughout the industry. and to say that this is the explanation is not to tell your people, don't promote women. if you have an aggressive woman, promoter. >> there have been women promoted, but first, we think that this -- the questions you are racing are ones that wal- mart can raise during the trial. the question at this juncture is whether our women -- whether are questions and we talk about what has been recognized as a common policy and there is no dispute that this policy is throughout the company, and the fact that

we at this juncture, we have shown, as we think we have to, that there are disparities adverse to women, and we show through the testimony and other evidence that we can provide an connect these two. >> have the sufficiently shown, despite the fact of an explicit, written, central policy of nondiscrimination, do you think that you have shown that this policy is a fraud, and what is really going on is there is a central policy promoting discrimination? >> we have testimony on the record from the vice-president of the company that this policy was look service at the company. we have testimony -- >> is this something -- we are talking about putting your foot

in the door, and you may well lose on every one of these points, but the standard is not supposed to beat -- very difficult to overcome. this is a common fact. >> i am sorry. >> it seems to me that this is a very serious problem. how do you work out the back pay? when you get through the threshold, we have this 23-b-2. the judge says he could not possibly try each individual. so how are they going to calculate all of this? >> the approach the district

court has endorsed, the approach we have recommended, is that in circumstances like this one, which are admittedly the set -- the exception to the rule, where the company had no standards by which to make a motion in pay decisions, and kept no records over the people being promoted, the reasons why they pay people certain amounts, that as a consequence of that, the decision made clear the obligation of the district court's on finding liality is to attempt to reconstruct the decision that would be made in the absence of discrimination. and the court has said here -- the more reliable method for doing so is to use the formula that relies on the robust data base of wal-mart in which they capture performance, seniority,

and a host of other job-related variables that they have on the paid promotion decisions, and prevent the concise comparisons -- what if you had a company with a very clear policy in favor of equal treatment of many women? the answer to your question was that women don't have as many positions because managers discriminate against them. but you still have the same, subjective delegation system. could you have a class of women who were harmed by this subject of policy, even though it was clear the policy of the organization favored employment opportunities? >> if this was as clear as the

hypothetical suggests, that the company had a policy of this sort, it is appropriate to seek a summary judgment. >> you see this is not enough to have a subjective decision. in 1000 stores you'll find a number who are not following the cut -- the company policy and exercising subjective judgment in a way that violates the right to equal treatment. could you bring a class of people subject to this discrimination as a result of this policy? >> i understand your hypothetical, and you could bring this on behalf of women who were subject to discrimination as a consequence of unchecked discretion. we have evidence here of results from this, that are very extraordinary. >> is this a common question,

given what central management knew, and given the facts about what people say, and how they behave, and given the results that central management should have known, should central management under the law have withdrawn some of the subject of discretion in order to stop these results. >> is this a question that every woman in this class shares? >> i believe so. they have all been a subject in these stores to this broad discretion. >> the district judge said that some would be a windfall, and others would not? >> i actually say that the

district judge did not find us. he said that the formula, that this is a regression of the analysis that would permit a comparison towards each woman and the amount that she was paid, taking into her performance and alike, and you would find that some women were not underpaid, and that they should not get any back pay. >> and i thought that his. was that some women were not underpaid. but if you have the individual case, this may show that they would have been fired or disciplined, and not owed any back pay. she compared favorably to a male peer.

>> justice, the kinds of factors that enter into this economic model, performance in particular, should capture if somebody should have been fired. this is a very important part of the model, and the evidence shows that women have higher performance than men, but were still under paid. >> does this include both those women who were underpaid, and those women who were not underpaid? do you not include both? is this a commonality? >> every class has some portion of its membership who were not harmed by discrimination, and what is common about this is that they were all subject to the same highly discretionary decision making, and still presents a question, to the

class. >> correct me if i am wrong. i thought that the teamsters case -- >> this is the paradigm that we use to determine what you used to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination. >> this is correct. help me if you can with us. let's propose that the experts testimony showed that an industry -- women are generally described against by mathematical factors. you have a company with a specific policy against discrimination. and you look at the way the employees are treated, and you find a disparity by the same mathematical factor. is this a cause of action? >> the disparity within -- that

women are subjected to, are these the same outside of society? but the company has a policy against discrimination. >> the responsibility of the company is to make certain that the managers did not make promotion decisions because of gender. if the comparison between the payment that women receive similarly situated to men within the company is such that they are underpaid, the company would have legal responsibilities under title 7, regardless of what happens in the rest of the industry. >> would this be true even without gilbert in difference? >> i do not know that the standard is the liberal indifference. >> suppose that there is no deliberate indifference with the

policy, can you proceed? >> announcing the policy is saying, don't discriminate. if this is effective, and protect companies against liability, any company could discriminate as much as they wanted. >> this typical company would be in violation, is this correct? that is with the academic literature is on which your theory is based. >> i think that this is not just academic literature. this is the premise behind the teamsters, it makes it clear that you do not look to populations outside the company in making comparisons. >> this company is typical of the entire american workforce. and the one variation is every

company has the same profile. and you say every company is in violation. >> if they hold companies responsible for the actions that they take with respect to their employees, there are industries and there may have been industries 30 or 40 years ago, when the whole industry could have had evidence of discrimination. >> what your answer assumes is that if there is a disparity between the advancement of women and men, it may only be attributed to gender discrimination, otherwise how could you say that all of these companies are presumptively engaging in sexual discrimination? >> in this instance, we have not

just any old analysis we are using, we have analysis that takes into account factors such as performance and seniority. >> i was talking about your answer to the justice. you have said that it may well be that every industry in the united states is guilty of sexual discrimination, unless there is equality of promotion for men and women. >> i do not take this position. what wanted to make clear is that there are other companies with the same problems may arise, which was not true here. wal-mart was behind the other large retailers. it does not mean that they are any less liable for discrimination in their own workplace. i do not think the entire society is doing this. >> may i ask when you think that

it is that the individual hearings are required? he described the kind of formula that he would use, so when is the formula approach right, and when is the individual hearing approach right? >> we should have the district court in the first instance. but in the balance, you could have available the kind of information that we do here. this is the data base to reliably constructed the kinds of decisions that will be made and likewise, there may be companies with better records, or more substantial standards to permit the reconstruction of these decisions. i do not think that this is something -- i am not contending that we should use this formula to approach in connection with these cases. this is evidence that they have

kept no standards. >> we could not possibly have a hearing in each case, on whether the particular woman deserves back payment. >> the district courts to make the comments that the sheer number of class members would make the administration of individual hearings difficult. >> this is impossible. >> this is more than difficult. >> the district court went ahead and made specific findings about the extent to which the particular records here show that the formula would be more reliable than the individualized hearings. >> i am a little bit confused. you say that the individual

hearing is impossible. you see that they do this through statistics, and through this model, i will be able to identify those who are deserving of a pay raise, and what this does not answer is, is when in this process, the defendants will be given a chance to defend against this finding, so are you suggesting that the district court should appropriately prevent a defendant, where there is no proof of intentional the with respect and not keeping records, that they were intending to stop these women from collecting money. when will they get a chance? and if they get a chance, is this at the end of july? >> >> wal-mart will have opportunity, >> this is whether

women are shown to be underpaid. >> this sounds like you say the only opportunity would be on the model, and they would be precluded from attempting to show any evidence that the decision was not made. >> if wal-mart comes forward, so far and are able to show the district court that this would be consistent with the reliable determination of who should be paid what and promoted -- we will preclude them from doing anything but offering a mathematical model. otherwise, it would be too hard

for the individual hearings. >> i am not saying this. they may be able to do this in a subjective environment, and they would have these circumstances but they have not done so. this takes evidence. >> it takes evidence to show that it is more reliable to have a hearing with evidence on the particular promotion or dismissal of the individual? this is more reliable that using, i don't care how admirable the decision as, is this really a question? this must be a very bad judicial system. >> this is not the judicial system, this is the record keeping of the company with the

pay and promotion process. 10 years later the managers will want to speculate about what they did 10 years earlier, with no prospective. this is not the model for reliable adjudication. >> we should put this is -- a statistical model before the jury and just say that we will do this on the basis of whether this is really due process. >> the circuits have been considering this for several years and in the narrow set of circumstances that we have here, if these record less decisions -- >> if there are no standards why is there commonality? the answer that you just gave it shows off law in your case in commonality.

>> this is with respect to try to reconstruct these decisions. we have a common policy that presents a common question, question seller probably create a case of a pattern or practice and we think that we have satisfied three components of commonality. >> one thing that we have touched on, this is a question about whether this would be limited. if we follow the notes of the advisory committee, damages predominate. this establishes to dominate -- you have to make the case under b-3. half the class is gone. they are not interested in this

relief. but everybody is interested in money. why doesn't the moeny -- why do you say that the injunction, the relief is damage sare lesser rather than the other way around? >> it is more than half the class that's gone. >> the7tyy continue t