that means there will be more federal spending. medicare spending for part d went up a lot and that is a challenge we will have to deal with. host: 1 recall, georgia, north carolina -- one more call. caller: the medicine was a ford dollarsfor -- that medicine was $84 for 30 pills. it is not a pain killer mind- altering medicine, i could get 86-month supply -- i could get a six-month supply. i called american pharmacy. surprise, surprise. it went up to $87 for 30

pills. congress is talking about how to pay for medicine cost. guest: brand name drug costs are higher here than in canada in most cases. generic drug prices are much lower in the u.s., and people use them more often. they have had a chance to save money when they make those switches. there's a problem in a fairness and in who pays for research and development. people made the same complaints about national security, keeping the world safe. we pay more than all other countries combined. it is important to keep

developing those new medicines that can keep -- that can make a difference in the lives of people like you. by no means is this issue over. making the medicare program prevention-oriented and personalized just like health care should be in the 21st century. we have more work to do. host: dr. mark mcclellan, the senior fellow at brookings institution, thank you for your time. guest: 1-800-medicare can refer you to places in your local area that can give you more help with making sure you are meeting your medical needs at the lowest possible cost. host: thank you. tomorrow we will get the fiscal

challenges to the program. you can see these other segments on our c-span website. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the congressional budget office is reporting this morning that the budget deficit will hit $1.28 trillion, down slightly from the previous two years. the agency says budget deficits will be reduced by a total of $3.30 trillion of the next decade largely because of the deficit-reduction package passed by congress earlier this month. the associated press says there is bad news -- the cbo projects only modest economic growth over the next few years.

doug elmendorf will answer reporters' questions at 11:00 this morning. another look at the martin luther king memorial on the mall. there is a full slate of of events planned on the official dedication this sunday. later today, we will have live coverage of a gala in his honor that well recognized globally is for peace. scheduled speakers include u.s. trade representative ron kirk and madeleine albright. that gets under way this evening at 7:00 p.m. eastern. [inaudible] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] >> a look at the martin luther king memorial on the national mall which will be dedicated

this sunday. our coverage plans get underway at 11:00 eastern here on c-span and online and on cspan radio. president obama will headline the list of speakers and presenters. what's more video of the candidates and see what political reporters are saying and tracked the latest campaign contributions with cspan's website for campaign 2012, easy- to-use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate bias, and the latest polling data, plus links to cspan media partners in the early primary and caucus states. all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> earlier this month, the supreme court justice elena kagan declined to say except she will recuse herself if the health plan comes before the

supreme court. she spoke about life as a supreme court justice and cameras and the court and interpreting block. she is interviewed by former law clerk to justice potter stewart elliott gerson from this is just about one hour. [applause] >> you told me this is your first time in aspen. >> but it will not be my last [applause] it might be pouring down but when i left washington, d.c., they just set a record for heat. that is pretty high. it is great to be here and great to be here in this terrific community. i have been taking advantage of

the music and the beauty. it is a wonderful place them comparing notes on the heights. many of you will see her on trails for the next few days. we will take seriously our offer to come back as often as possible. klein 1988 profile of the young koo elena kagan, still very young, after having been promoted from the white house counsel's office to the chief of domestic policy and the clinton white house, she was described as the white house's all purpose brain. [laughter] adviser to the president on all things legal and constitutional, she developed a reputation that just grew over the years of being able to bring together people of diverse in ideological positions with enormous skill. in the white house, she was the one who convinced john mccain

and republicans to allow the fda to have regulatory authority over tobacco which was not a mean feat. after her experience in the white house, she returned to her roots envelope. she had been an editor of the harvard law review for justice thurgood marshall. she returned to harvard law school where she became a professor and became dean. i think the first woman dean of harvard law school. [applause] she became highly regarded for her ability to bring conservatives and liberals together in what was a very highly fractured faculty and recruited many conservative voice to a faculty known for its liberal reputation. she was appointed solicitor

general of the united states by president obama in january, 2009 and i think i am correct to say you were the first woman ever in that position. [applause] she was nominated to be an associate justice of the supreme court by the president and was sworn in about one year ago this week. hshe has now completed her first term. when she began on the term, there was a lot of discussion about how there would be havoc because of all the opinions you have to recuse yourself from having been solicitor general, perhaps 1/3 of the cases this term but there wasn't that much difficulty as it turned out with those cases? >> it turned out i was not indispensable. the court manage without made perfectly fiber it was recused from about 1/3 of the cases, about 30. 28 of them -- the other eight

justices managed to decide and on two of them they split 4-4. i appear to be expandable as the ninth justice. next year i won't be reduced in so many. >> even though it was just her first term and even though their work recusals, it is fair to say that after this term key has received extraordinary high acclaim for her opinions in this first term and are influenced and indeed, linda greenhouse who is probably the dean of supreme court reporters and is now a professor actually wrote it that justice taken was the terms biggest winner. that is remarkable for someone who was just in her first term.

questions about the expectations you have about the position given the kinds of experiences you had before. you were the only member of the court who has no prior experience of being a judge. what did that mean for you? were there things you had to learn that your brethren did not to? >> there were. all justices when they start find some things difficult and it doesn't matter whether you have been a judge or not. my good friend and colleague justice sotomayor had talked about this. she had been a judge for very long but she said the experience of judging on the supreme court was different because all the cases were so much harder. they don't get to the supreme court unless they are very difficult and you don't have any kind of backstopped. .

the decision you make as the final decision and that increases the sense of responsibility and pressure. even when you come from a circuit court, there are real differences in the experience of being a justice that a number of my colleagues have talked about. because i had never been a judge, there were some things i had to figure out that other colleagues have already figured out. that was certainly true of what i will call the mechanics of the job. people have a very different styles in this respect and they had figured out what to do. there is the question of how you deal with your clerks and what do you ask them to do and what functions your clerks perform. how do you write opinions?

do you read the first draft or did you ask the courts to right the first draft? if you ask the court to right the first jeff, what do you do with it exactly count? [laughter] the mechanics of the job -- i had to figure out and i am not sure i have. i used to say to my clerks that their experience for me was probably different than any clark i will have in the future. in some ways it was more exciting because i was trying to figure this out but in some ways frustrating. sometimes i would say to the clerks to do something and they would do exactly what i said. i said that was a waste of time for all concerned. in terms of the mechanics of the job, it was a little bit of trial and error in trying to figure out what works for me and

how i learned best and who i wanted to talk with when and when i wanted to read, all those things. i was definitely trying things and seeing what works for me and i expect i will continue to do that. >> what about the fact you had spent so much of your career as a scholar in the academy? did that affect your experience in ways that perhaps surprise you? >> i thought about this recently. it occurred to me at one point that i approach writing opinions in the way i approached preparing for a class. the way in which the teaching experience was most relevant to my judging was not the scholarship part of legal academia but it was the teaching part of legal academia.

what makes a good law school teacher is not how much you know. everybody knows a lot. but trying to figure out how to communicate complicated ideas it to people who know a lot less than you do about a given subject. not only how to communicate so they understand it at the moment but also how to communicate so the points kind of sit with them, trying to figure out a vivid ways of explaining things that stick with people and make them look at a subject in a particular way. i realized one day while i was sitting writing an opinion that i was going through the same kind of process, trying to figure out how i would teach this class and if i could figure out how i talked to a class, to make people really get something, then i could figure out how to convey the idea is in an opinion to make the reader is get that sense. >> what about your experience

as solicitor general? you argued six cases before the supreme court. how did that help you? >> it gave me a lot more sympathy with the people on the other side of the podium. [laughter] a number of my colleagues have argued before the court. the chief justice may have been the best oral advocate in the history of the supreme court. he has had a great deal of experience. justice alito has and justice ginsburg has been i think it gives you a sense of what they are up against. it is a lot easier to ask the questions than it is to answer them. i was reminded of the thing that many law professors say to their classes. it is just as hard to write the exam as it is to take it. [laughter] truly, that is -- no.

[laughter] and that is the same thing here. being solicitor general i think he gave me a great perspective on the court. the job that is most like being at the supreme court justice is being solicitor general. your not deciding the case is but you are focused all the time on the supreme court. your job is to try to figure out how to persuade nine supreme court justices to take a particular position. now my job is to figure out how to persuade a [laughter] supreme court] the difference between those things is not altogether a great. know, theof you don't solicitor general is the lawyer who represents the united states in the supreme court and to also

supervises appellate litigation is generally a varia. the solicitor general participate in 3/4 of the cases the supreme court decides. sometimes he the solicitor general is a party but someone who has some interest in how the court rules on the case and participates can the court's decision making. when the solicitor general participates, it is almost always give an argument time and is treated almost as if it were a party. in about 3/4 of the cases during the time i was solicitor general, i was there and i was watching the lawyers who work for may argue to the court and sometimes argue to the court myself about once a month. i watched the justices to figure out what they were concerned

about and what their questions were all about and what it showed about their various interests. you learn a tremendous amount about the court by doing this job. the job is to focus on the court and tried to convince the court to do things. >> let's bring you back to your very first supreme court argument. if i am not mistaken, it was a case called citizens united. >> of haiti case. -- big case. tell us what it was like to argue that case? >> it was obviously a big case. it was my first supreme court argument for it was my first appellate court arguments of any kind. i had argued in district court as a younger lawyer but i had never made an appellate court argument. that was a little bit nervous- making.

the case had been argued. it was argued by wonderful lawyer in the solicitor general's office. he argued that the day after i was confirmed by the senate. others confirmed by the senate and went to my job and my first day in the first thing i heard was this wonderful lawyer in my office arguing citizens united. he would be the first person to tell you that argument did not go well. everybody thought that we are going to lose this case. then the weeks went by and the court did not issue any decision. on the last day of the term, the court rather than issuing a decision, issued an order and it was an order to re-hear the case the next year, something the court very rarely does. accompanying this order was a set of questions that the lawyers were supposed to focus

on the next year. the court said we want everyone to argue about whether the court should overrule two prior supreme court decisions. when the court does that, it does not take a supreme court expert to say that the accord is pretty much of their vethere. as the summer went on and it was clear that i was solicitor general that i would argue this case and take it over, it was an important case because any time the solicitor general's office decides to defend the constitutionality of legislation, it is important but this was very important legislation, this campaign finance law had been in the making. for many making

for many years. my job was to defend it. the only thing that made less nervous-making was that everybody i talked to said you're going to lose. [laughter] it doesn't matter what you do up there, have a good time. i work hard. i prepared hard that summer. i went up and argued as one of four lawyers. i was nervous when i sat at the bench but when i got to the podium, the words of started coming out of my mouth and i thought i can do this. it was a very thrilling experience. but it was also clear to me when i sat down again that all those people were right. i was going to lose [laughter] ] there was no fifth vote out there. >> so it was no surprise that i

was not all that surprised. >> let's talk about a different kind of surprised. given all your experience before studying the court and arguing for the court and now being one of the nine justices, what was your biggest surprise in being a member of the court compared to what you expected the institution to be like? >> on not sure it was a surprise-surprise but i suppose just how warm everybody is, how collegial the institution is. this comes as a surprise to many people when i talk about my experiences on the court and to me, as well. you read the court's decisions and often there are some pretty sharp give and take.

people accuse other justices on the other side -- a wide variety of [laughter] terrible] you think they must hate each other. they might hit each other after they wrote an opinion. the truth is it is completely not so. it is an incredibly collegial and warm institution with good friendships throughout the court and across what ever people think of as ideological divides. that was the nicest surprise or just the nicest feature of joining the court was feeling what a warm welcome people gave me but also how warmly people feel toward each other and how well and respectfully the knot

-- the members of the institution operate together. >> why do you think that is? it is remarkable when you consider the kind of partisanship that lack of collegiality across the strait, -- across the street, one would want someone abolished under -- a bottling this. everything you do is in writing. it is all reasons. even if the language is strong, there is a degree of mutual respect across the divide where as may be a more political branches exist now in sound bites and things are not reasons and argued and they are just conclusions. why do you think it is like that? i was a law clerk there and i remember how collegial it was and was a shock anthen. it is wonderful and too bad it is not contagious.

[laughter] >> your theory is interesting. sometimes the writing makes you think how good they really like each other. it is not for the most part sound bites. it is reason argumentation. some part of it may be just lock because when you clerked it was collegial. there were times in supreme court history when it has not been separate i read a great book about the supreme court in the 1940's and 1950's called a "and scorpion." >> know what feldman. >> it is a fabulous book. hiit makes you feel you are lucy for having this collegial court. the court in those days and he focused on four justices all of

whom were appointed by fdr. when they were appointed, there were assumed to be natural allies but they hated each other >> they were scorpions in a bottle. >> it is partly luck and contingency. i also thought that we know we are going to be dealing with each other for a long time. the minute after the senate confirmed to me, the first phone call led came into me was from the 50 justice but i took the phone call and he said i want to be the first to congratulate you and tell you how excited i am here to serve with you. he said we will be serving together for 25 years. [laughter] i said only 25? [laughter] it's true.

that makes people -- i don't want to say you have an incentive to like each other -- you can live in an institution happily or you can live an institution sadly. you can live with people respectfully or you can live with people without that. if you're going to be someplace for a long time, it makes you value collegiality. >> it is fair to say that the supreme court is by far the most respected institution in government today, certainly it is true today yet it is also the least understood. >> i hope that is not related. [laughter] if they know are about it -- >> they would know more about you if you allow cameras in the courtroom.

would that be a good idea? >> with the lights glared in my eyes now, it would be clearly no. i have said before that i think it would be a good idea. i differ from some of my colleagues. in this last year, i have come to better understand the opposite position. the reason that i thought -- i came to this view when i was solicitor general. i was sitting there watching case after case and this is an unbelievable court to watch. this was the court before i got onto it. everybody was so prepared, so smart, so obviously deeply concerned about getting to the right answer. i thought if everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of

government and how it is operated. i've thought it was a shame that only 200 people per day can get to see it and a bunch of other people can read about it. reading about it is not the same experience as seeing -- is an incredible court, the court that i watched in its level of preparation and engagements and intelligence and real concern. i thought it would be a good thing. some of my colleagues disagree. the reason they disagree is because they are worried about what it will change. they are worried that if you put cameras in there, everybody will start playing to the cameras. and the thing that is so good about the institution will diminish. that is a fair point. i am still coming out with

trust that we would continue to do the same thing and lawyers would continue to do the same thing. i understand the concern. >> and the spirit of greater understanding, could you take a minute and talk to us about how the court decides to kill the from the perspective of the junior justice and the significance of oral argument and describe the conference where you have to give your opinion before anybody else as the junior justice? >> i actually go ninth. i think that has changed over time. >> it is to be the other way around. >> i go ninth and then we can talk about oral argument. the chief justice starts in every case and the chief justice introduces the case and then says what he thinks and how he

would vote. it goes around the table in seniority order and i am the last to speak. there is a role that nobody can speak twice before everybody has had a chance to speak once. that is sort of an artificial and formal role. when you are the ninth justice -- [laughter] and must have been denied the justice who thought up this rule. we all go around and after i speak van -- the ninth is not so bad. the ninth is actually better than the eight for the seventh or something because there is a certain drama sometimes to going ninth. [laughter] just rarely but [laughter] then there is more general discussion. a general discussion varies. sometimes it can be very quick and sometimes it can be very

linked. -- lengthy. it is not tremendously related to the importance of the case in the public eye. i remember my first conference and there was a case that was clearly a front-page newspaper case. we voted and then we all went around and discussed it a little bit. then there was another case which no newspaper in the united states would write a sentence about. we discussed it for 40 minutes. i wonder why that was. the discussion is relative -- we discussed when we think there is something to discuss and opinions may change and a consensus might be reached. there are some cases in the end where you go around once and it is clear that everybody thinks what they think you can discuss it till the end of time and it

will not do anything except make people matter at each other. there are some cases where a discussion really helps. it changes minds. it forges consensus. then we talk a lot to try to do that. that is how the conference works. oral argument comes a few days before conference so we actually have time to think about the oral argument and think about what we learned and think about -- i find that very valuable. there are some courts or the judges go straight from oral argument into a conference. i find it very valuable to actually digest what has happened in oral arguments. that is to think about what the lawyers have questioned but also to think about what my colleagues have said a large part of the value and function of oral argument is to listen to each other.

oral argument is the first time the justices talk about a case together. when justice scalia for justice ginsburg asks a question, i can figure out what is bothering them about a case and where they are leaning. that can be extremely valuable to think about both because it may be convincing to me and also because it may help me to try to figure out how i can convince them. oral argument is an important part of our process. >> she just hughes -- teeth hughes in the 1930's said it takes five years to go around the track once meaning it takes a long time for a new justice hito find his voice or influenc. it is fair to say reading

supreme court commentators have your first term that you are not taking five years. in only one year, you have adequate quite a remarkable influence. i already mentioned that linda greenhouse said you were the winner of the term in terms of the significance potentially of a few dissents. >> i lost to those. >> they are for posterity. someday they will be convincing. just this last week's je,ff rosen wrote that one of the remarkable things about this year was the elegance and eloquence of your prose. and how you have emerged as a beautiful writer and how convincing a writer and how, in his view, as a student of the court it usually takes a long time to be able to reach that point. he compared your descents to those of holmes and brandeis.

>> he has no credibility whatsoever. [laughter] >> if i read some of the excerpts of those dissents, it will bring some context what you said earlier that after saying some of the things about the other opinions that they are very forceful. jeff also set you right in a way that is so understandable for anybody. i got a chance to read these dissents and one of the things i think is a great shame is that most americans think the supreme court opinions can only be read by lawyers. they are really remarkable. let's talk about a couple of them. let's talk about this term. there are two cases that you wrote a very strong dissents both involving arizona. one of them was the arizona citizens clean elections act.

that is where the chief justice wrote the majority opinion and you had some very, very strong language in your descent. can you describe what that case was about and why you felt as passionately as you did in dissent? >> this was a case about the constitutionality of arizona's public financing system. it was one provision of the public financing system. the way their system works -- this is basically arizona had decided that if you -- all candidates are privately financed that there were all betoo great chance of corruption with all the private money in the system and people giving gazillions of dollars for people bundling gazillions of small contributions. they said that those people will have the ability to go to a candidate and then to a representative and say essentially that this is what i want you to do. public financing systems are

meant to decrease political corruption. karzai's public financing system had a provision -- a result of's have public financing system would work as a match -- arizona's system would work as a matter. the american money that a public finance committee -- can they would get depended on how much money they're privately-financed opponent would spend for it they are -- if they're privately financed opponent put on a tv ad that costx amount of dollars, the publicly-financed opponent would get the same amount of money up to a certain ceiling. the reason that arizona had this system is that it is very difficult to make public financing systems work. either you don't give the pipe -- public finance candidate

enough money to run a campaign and people say they cannot run a competitive campaign and they don't join the system or you say in order to prevent that we will give you a lot of money but then it turns out that that is just wasting taxpayer money because the elections are not competitive anyway. what arizona tries to do is to say we will give a publicly- financed candidates enough but not too much to run a competitive campaign and that this will strengthen our public financing system. do you want me to keep on going? >> i think it is important. >> the majority said that this was a restraint on speech and burdens of the privately- financed candidates speech because the privately-financed candidate would not a publicly- financed candidate was going to get money and discounted as a burden on the privately-financed

candidates's speech. my response was that was not the case. the majority kept on thinking about this in terms of the language of restrictions and restraints and curbings. beat speech. what the legislation was doing was producing more speech and more electoral competition. this did not count as a first amendment subsidy. there is a very long line of first amendment cases that said that when the government pays people to speak that is ok as long as the government does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, as long as the government does not give money to democrats but not to republicans. here there was no question that the government was not to. and

that anybody could have that money if the person decided to enter the public financing system which was the whole point of the program. the point of my dissent was to say that the same rules should follow that this was creating more speech and we should not view this as a speech restraint requiring a special justification but that even if we did there was a special and important and compelling justification here which was to reduce political corruption. that was the dispute between us. >> if any of you have any doubt about it k just toagan's ability to a explain clearly a -- >> don't do this. >> she says against all this, the majority claims to have revealed a three smoking guns. the only smoke here is the

majority's and is the kind that goes with mirrors. [laughter] [applause] i won't read anymore because i love those dissents. let's stay on that theme. if you're into in the other arizona opinion, it involved the establishment of religion and the dissenting. have we lost power? one of the speakers -- i am sorry about that. the other arizona opinion involves an establishment of religion claim. i want to leave time for questions from the audience. there is again, thank you. there were a number of first amendment cases this term. it was perhaps a banner year for

the first amendment. the victories were for purveyors of violent videos to minors, victories for what most people would consider outrageous protesters at military funerals, a victory for rich people who declined public fun, and also a victory for data mining drug companies who wanted access to doctors' prescriptions. is there something you can say about all of these first amendment opinions to put them in context? >> most of us did not agree with all of them. i am trying to think about those four and it is the case the justice kennedy and justice scalia agreed with all four of them and none of the other people took the most speech

protected position on all of those. to give you the opposite side of this, we had some cases where the court decided against expansive reading of the first amendment. he the was one case which dealt with the speech of public employees or the first amendment claim was rejected. there was another very interesting case where we rejected the first amendment claim of an elected official who said that various conflict of interest laws interfered with his freedom of speech. the court did not always voted in favor of the first amendment claim. you are exactly right that most of the time and in the biggest cases that did -- they did. this is a court that is extremely protective of the

first amendment and extremely protective of speech. to the extent that the court sees something as restricting the, speech it is likely as not that the restriction will go down. there are disagreements among the justices as what counts as speech and disagreements about what counts as a restriction but there is no question that this court has a very expansive view of the first amendment. >> was one of those cases particularly difficult for you? >> i thought the video games case was the toughest case that i decided all year. it was the case where i struggled most and all i was on the wrong side of this.

this case came out of california. it involved extremely violent video games. there was a question about how the video games to which the statute applied was defined and whether the definition was vague putting the question aside, the question was whether the state could prohibit the sale of a video games to minors if an adult was not with the minor to give permission and not allow minors to buy video games themselves unaccompanied by an adult. you can see why the government would have wanted to do this. you can see the kind of a fact these extremely violent video games have on young people. in some ways, it was very easy to say i understand what the

state is doing here. it seems kind of reasonable. i could not figure out a way to square that with our first amendment precedents. president is very important and i try to think all the time about what our prior cases have said and what analysis is required by those prior cases. it seems pretty clear that those prior cases required us to evaluate legislation by means of what is called strict scrutiny which is to say that the state has to have not just an important but the most compelling kind of interest and the state has to show that the legislation is advancing that interest in the most narrow way possible. i thought this statute could not satisfy that standard and i thought it was pretty clear that that standard had to be applied

according to our various presidents. i ended up coming out in that case -- i joined justice scalia's opinion which validated the california law by sweated over that. i went into one office and the senator said to me that i told the president two things, he said, when the president asked me what i wanted in the supreme court justice. he said the first thing he told the president was he did not want another circuit court judge. that's good. he said the second thing he told the president was he did not want another person from harvard or yale. [laughter] he is speaking to the dean of harvard. i said i hope one out of two is good enough [laughter] are ways in which the court is not represented. there are lots of great law

schools in the world and there are lots of great lawyers who did not go to those two schools. it is ridiculous about those two schools have all nine justices between them. eight of them had been circuit court judge to. s. most of us have lived most of our lives on the amtrak acela line. most of us come from -- you come from washington, d.c. and you go to boston and that is where we spend most of our lives and that is kind of weird. the problem is that there are so many measures of what people think of as a party of diversity and only nine seats and the ability only to dominate people one by one over a course of many years. it is hard to figure out how to

do this if that's what you think you want to do. >> all want to retrieve questions from the audience. i think we have microphones. you will have to help me, over here -- if you could just give us your name and have a very brief question, please. i don't think that microphone is working. >> charlotte robinson, boca raton, florida. when is this country going to get tough on immigration po,rn, and hardened criminals? [laughter] >> i think it to those questions are likely to come before the court next year. [laughter]

seriously, i don't think she can answer that. >> we function as an institution and a very particular way. -- in a particular way. we decide cases. we don't decide big, broad issues. we decide controversies between two particular parties. i think we take very seriously the idea that we really look carefully and closely at that particular case or controversy before us and the particular arguments that are made on either side of that case or controversy. in this way, we function very different light from legislature and governors and political actors.

we don't say what i think a issuex or this is the way i'll will always go on this issue. we really take seriously the notion -- our jurisdiction is limited to cases of controversies between parties. mi focusghtily on those particular disputes. >> a question over here? >> i was the high sheriff of greater london. but last night we had the privilege a -- >> london as a high share a [laughter] wow. -- high sheriff. wow. [laughter] [applause] >> last night we had the extraordinary experience a billy budd and as a distinguished supreme court justice, in your decision making, are you looking

for the most just decision or are you look -- constrained by the legality and particular constitutionality of whether something is right or wrong? >> there is no question i am constrained. that is an easy question. i am not a philosopher. justice is a misnomer because it suggests that what we do is to ask what the just outcome is. we don't do that at all. we say in each case what is the appropriate legal outcome. it might be that we are interpreting the constitution and trying to figure out what the constitution means or it might be that we are interpreting a statute and trying to figure out what the statute means. take a case where congress has passed a statute and the case

has come to you that concerns the meaning of that statute. you think it is a terrible statute. you think it is an unjust statute or unfair prepared too bad because your job is to look at that statute and try to figure out what it means, putting aside whether you think it is a good or bad a statute. your job is to figure out what congress meant to do when it passed the statute and resolve ambiguities and fill gaps in the way you think congress would have intended to do so because congress is the decision making body here. the same thing is true but in a different way because of the more open-ended provision when you are dealing with constitutional law you are doing law. you're trying to figure out what the constitution means and where

the text does not tell you that. you look at history and precedent. looking at legal sources to figure out the meaning of it particular provision that is at issue in a particular case. >> we have a question somewhere? i have to realize ru ournners because we can't see. >> given what you said about what you had to do during your first term because of your involvement with the obama administration, i wonder what you will do when the health care legislation comes before you? >> i don't an ounce in any case whether i am recusing myself or not crack -- prior to the case. there have been cases -- if you make a study of this, you will see what i voted on before. i never do this and no other

member of the court does this -- says while -- whether one is reduced to a particular case before the case comes up. >> we have a question somewhere in the middle? >> i am a lawyer in d.c. two and distinguished justices have expressed their views on looking at authority with the focus on domestic standards and the other focusing on precedent and authority of multiple countries around the world as to what should be considered in deciding opinions. i am curious as to whether you have a particular -- >> i'm sorry, do it one more time. my view on whether..? >> the standards being applied on reaching a decision and whether you should look at u.s.

standards or the international lost that they may relate to the particular issue. >> there are some kinds of cases where you have to help look at international law. if you're interpreting a treaty, you look at international law. that is the most obvious example but there are others as well. the cases in which this has been controversial i think are not those cases. the cases in which this has been controversial is when there are particular provisions of the u.s. constitution weather is a dispute as to its meaning and some justices have cited or made reference to foreign law in order to interpret a u.s. provision of the constitution. my view is that when you are interpreting the u.s. constitution, we have a very

distinctive constitution. with a very distinctive set of provisions. i am not saying that another country does is going to settle that question. on the other hand, i think there are some people who would say you can nevercite a foreign case or you cannot at all refer to what a foreign court has done. that seems wrong to me as well. in just the same way you might cite a law review article because the article has a good idea in it. he might cite a foreign precedent because that are unprecedented has a good idea in it. in doing so, you have to be really super cognitive that the foreign president may be

interpreting a provision which has a very different history and different provision than the one you are interpreting. i don't think the kind of know- nothing attitude and we will look at what for records do is appropriate. on the other hand, is tremendously important that we realize there is not some transcendental body of law out there. when we look at the american constitution, we are looking at the american constitution and our constitution has made choices that other countries have not.

each give your question and justice kaga wheren respond. >> it was pretty revolutionary to have a woman and now that there are three women, can you speak to how that has changed the court? has been day o'connor in the court and a few occasions this year either to see former clerks argue before the court but actually came in on the

arizona cases. there were three very important cases involving arizona and she came in one or two of those he to see how overstate was very very she has talked about this. as a spectator, and away the bench works is that justice sotomayor sits on the far left of the bench and i sit on the far right of the band. justice ginsberg said near the middle of the bench. justice o'connor said that she heard women's voices coming from all over. [laughter] [applause] and that was a remarkable thing to her because i am sure that she remembers very well those days where she was the one and only. i think it is kind of great that that has happened.

i'm glad to be a part of it. >> think that is a great way to end and we would like to thank you very much. [applause] welcome you back to aspen. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> congressional budget office is issuing a their economic outlook and budget forecasts. we had planned to bring into law but we're having technical difficulties. we're covering the event and we will show it to you later this afternoon in our program scheduled on the c-span network separas. 11:30 eastern, we'll take it to the white house briefing room and it may come to you from martha's vineyard at 11:00 eastern on c-span and later this

afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we will be at the pentagon for deputy assistant secretary of defense michael schiffer talking about the military and security developments involving china. both of those events will be live here on c-span. lots of live events that have our sunday coverage of the dedication of the martin luther king jr. memorial statue in the nation's capital. this morning, we asked our viewers about the impact of the martin luther king legacy. you can weigh in on the others. the thing that drove us to the question is a special section in the "washington post." it takes a look at what you saw going into the show this morning, the shot of the martin luther king jr. memorial. inside, several informational details about the memorial.

here are some details that come from the paper this morning. from the paper this morning. the sculpture is called "this town of hope." -- "the stone of hope." a single wedges pushed out and from there king's form the emerges. you can see the example right there, also information as far as the wall of quotes, a total of 14 " says that span his career are in the granite none from the "i have a dream" speech. compare that to the lincoln monument. they make that in comparison to the average six-foot man.

we're looking for first 45 minutes with the release of disinformation, the dedication ceremony this sunday. the impact of martin luther king on you and the lines will be on your screen. we go to louisiana, sabrina, go ahead. >> i think he paved the way for me to be where i am today. i am a senior in college and i will always be grateful for him. i think that monument is a wonderful thing. >> do you plan to come visited any time soon? caller: not send but i will come visit because i like my children to see it. host: what you think of the design? caller: it does not look exactly like him. i would prefer it to be more like him.

someone said that it did not have none of the quotes from the "i have a dream" speech. i would like some of that. i am just glad that they have the monument, period. host: on the independent line. caller: i was fortunate to be in a few marches with him. he made me understand as a young man how important the environment -- non-violence was. it is such a historical thing that a statute to them. -- to have a statue of him. we are all americans and he did a lot of great things and brought us such a high spirit among young people. he was triple teamed and when he

died, he did not have all the fortune that they claimed he had feared he was not doing it for money. he was a dedicated man. i am so proud of him. host: video from the side of the memorial. if you want to find out more affirmation, some of the history, saying that in september 1996, the u.s. house of representatives passed joint resolution 78, authorizing a memorial in washington, d.c. to honor dr. martin luther king jr.. the senate followed on october 3, 1996. in 1998, president clinton signed a joint congressional resolution authorizing the building of a memorial. in 2006, lee ying was the

sculptor of record. construction has commenced, completion of the memorial, it depends on the campaign. democrats line. caller: let me say that the statue is ok. it almost looks unfinished. it almost looks unfinished. i do like a legacy. i am a lifetime democrat and i believe that his principles and philosophy is were to lift up poor people. it wasn't so much about racial things, although that was part of it. but it was more lifting of the people so that they have

dignity in their work, paid a fair wage, given opportunities in lead this country, and right now, i believe some of our politicians have lost touch with that. they have gone away from policies to help poor people and there are more poor people do to the economy. host: clinton township, rhode island, you are next. caller: i am from michigan but that is ok. i was just a little kid when all of this was going on with martin luther king. but i studied history, and that changes he cause they were all for the better, and i think he would be upset with the way that things are going on now. he said the judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

me being a republican and the vanity party person, we are not racist people and we always get labeled that. maxine waters said that we can all go straight to hell. the way they treat us like we're some sort of that person because we do not agree with policy. we are not racists and we should not be judged by that. because we do not agree with policy. host: what do you think about the memorial? caller: i think it is great. it is right on time. we could use something like this. host: 11:00 is the dedication ceremony on sunday. because of hurricane irene, this is from the "l.a. times." the latest projection shows the eye of the storm hitting washington about 8:00 a.m. sunday. that just hours before crowds are scheduled to descend on the national mall for the formal dedication.

as of early tuesday afternoon, no decision had been made about the ceremony. they had monitored the situation and they have from the beginning. the real bottom line is no decision has been made. there is a huge amount of trauma injected here. wiser heads and cooler heads need to prevail. riverside, california, you are next on the impact of martin luther king. caller: i have a different perspective and i hope you'll be patient with me. give me one moment please. i do not agree with none of the legacy of martin luther king at all. honor your husband, on your wife, about your parents, and do the right thing. the bottom line is, all of this legacy stuff, the only reason that they celebrate him is because he was a man.

he told brown man to let races people come up on them and do as they wanted. that is why brand men are not -- brown men are not respected today and their children have no self-respect. i am a brown person, and i do not call myself like. black persons are negative. it is going to be a blight pay. host: vivian shepherd's son off twitter. twitter is one way you can reach out to us this morning. a couple of news stories taking place. this from "usa today." the nation section.

pennsylvania, go ahead. the republican line. caller: i think this is a very well deserved honor for this

man, who dedicated his life to just causes, especially as blacks were treated in that era, and we have come a long way. i like to refer people to "letter from a birmingham jail." it is so referent -- moving to refer to that. this one has a lot of quote from jesus. the reason that he is doing the non-violent demonstrations, and he says in one that he agrees with sand and dust and who says, an unjust law is no lockout all. in my own personal life, i am working at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center because i believe that the roe v wade law that says is a ghost came -- it is ok to kill unborn baby is an unjust law that needs to be overturned. we offer money, a sum of

$3,000, for abortion-minded women to choose life. women to choose life. host: the park service reports that the lincoln memorial, the washington mall morial, and others were closed after an earthquake struck yesterday. it is on the front page of several pages this morning. this is a picture from the "washington times." we're talking about the impact of martin luther king's legacy in light of his dedication -- the memorial dedications sunday. caller: my comment is along the lines of, we have carved up the

stone into martin luther king. wouldn't he be happier if president obama would take the time to put an end to the stones being harvested against civil rights? i think that is a fair question. i think that is his ticket to the next round. there is no more racism in america. i think that we have become very -- let's go to the gray areas and put a stop to it. host: washington, d.c., david on the democrats' line. caller: those of us that have managed to learn to read and write would greatly appreciate the sacrifice that kine made. he was the embodiment of what needed to change in america.

he let himself -- and made himself a sacrificial lamb so that america could see that the constitution that this country bestowed upon as people would be a living evidence of what the country needed to stand for. he would be very proud of what barack obama was able to do, becoming the first african american president, and he would be greatly happy to see how the country has come together in some many ways on some many levels. we are all americans and in the event that something happened to this country, we would all come together, regardless of political persuasion. king would be so happy on so many different levels.

host: another comment. the the "telegraph" of london talks about this. more than 150 brand of blocks,

they were shipped from china to the port of baltimore, and reassembled by a team of 100 workman. that is from the "daily telegraph." we have video of the memorial, with a live dedication taking place on sunday. greensboro, n.c., robyn on the democrats' line. caller: the statue of dr. martin luther king is ok. it would be better to see blacks, whites, asians, and indians surrounding him holding hands. there is still racism. the republicans against democrats, nothing going on.

still there is nothing for the poor people. if you are not rich, and you do not even qualify as an american. that is wrong. we have a lot of work to do. we need to keep going forward and get rid of the republicans and democrats. there should be one union for one nation for the people. host: georgia, even on the independent line. caller: i think the taxpayers money should be spent on something more than the tax year. i know that martin luther did some good, but he would want to help out the people of the nation. host: turley savage in the kit you new york times." -- in the "new york times."

wichita, kan., good morning on the republican line. caller: i like the statute.

it reminds me of bringing people together. and that is what we need today. we have been divided by or political beliefs. -- how or political beliefs. it brings out this hatred-type thing on each other across the country. which is really disturbing, because when king march, he marched with everybody, blacks, whites, mexican. whites, mexican. that is why i really appreciate the saatchi there. -- the statue there. caller: i liked the design. it looks real good, the way they have the statue.

the guy from north carolina said a while ago, i agree with what he said. i want to ask one thing here. the bush administration. host: we will leave it there. you can also ask a question on facebook in response. cumberland, and georgia, democrats line, tammy. caller: i was calling into response have amani used to make the martin luther king heineman.

it was made from people send in donations. if people would stop focus on black-and-white and do what needs to be done for the country, we would run all whole lot better. that is what martin with the king stood for. host: the memorial, what do you think? caller: i think it is beautiful. if i was able, i'll have my son there. he loves dr. martin luther king. he is 17 years old. every year since the sixth grade, he goes around him our community and does the speech. if i had the money to be there, i would be there. host: portland, ore., you are next. dorothy, you are on the democrats' line. caller: if dr. king was alive today, his heart would be broken. in this country, dr. king stood for the trip.

and the truth of it all is is that racism is as every bit as deeply embedded in this country as it has always been. the only difference we have from the time of death from the fact that they do not hang us in public anymore, they kill us and prisons and like this up and destroy our names and take our reputations away from us and make sure that we cannot thrive in society. other than that, the only differences that we are in denial. we are lying. black people have become power down because white people do not want to a admit that they are still races. i do not say that from a point of hatred. i say it from a point that, in order to change a thing, it is like an alcoholic, that is something that has been imbedded in this country from its inception. and it does not go away with the election of president obama. and we are treating him so

terrible, with so much racism, and we find people at the head of the country with so much money, promoting that kind of racism and that kind of hatred. for profit. host: 1 more earthquake story that looks at business by the senate. they reported yesterday that the senate met briefly in a basement stair -- near union station. it is a train station. here is the unusual off-campus session. they were meeting in pro forma sessions to prevent president obama from making recess appointments. the earthquake forced the capitol to be evacuated. they had to set up shop in the nearby basement of the postal building.

chris kuhn's gavel open the session. other reports say that the meeting took about 20 seconds. again, the video that the senate released to us yesterday. savannah, georgia. on the republican line. caller: good morning. pedro, i am so grateful for the dr. king memorial. in this respect, it is so timely. in this nation there is so much stress and distrust and discourse. in this clary on moment, what he represents is of bringing on and the inclusiveness of all people there because dr. king's key legacy is that every person has the opportunity to fulfill their greatest potential. and not be subverted from doing that. and that is across the board. he was not exclusively for

african-americans though we are included. but he was for all people. that is what this nation represents. i am so grateful at a time like this when there is so much division and so many differences and people in their camps. there are common causes and what there are common causes and what a wonderful opportunity to rally around that and represent what america really stands for. host: a democratic perspective. host: a democratic perspective. see it on c-span at 11:00 this sunday. w.j." that morning will also talk about his legacy with the roundtable, talking about leaders to look at his legacy. we will be taking place a 30 a.m. this coming sunday. florida, good morning to matthew on the independent line. go ahead, and do not listen to

the tv. go ahead, you are on. he has left us. miami, florida, cecilia on the democrats' line. caller: i am talking in reference to the statue. i think it is a beautiful essence of him, representing the essence of him, not just those look. people are getting caught up in the look and that is terrible. as far as the chinese person building a statue, god, we need to stop that. to stop that. he did not stand for that third he wanted asian, chinese, blacks, white -- he stood for all that. the money that was set in, people said in money for that stature to be built. they know that what he stood for stands for something. and what we're going through today as far as the mission, the political thing going on, black

and white, against our president, he would be really heartbroken because he thought we had, long way. -- we had, a long way. people -- we had come a long way. where the ones that built this country, on the working people of america, he we are the ones of america, he we are the ones that go to work every day in the big businesses. we made this country. host: from 2009, "usa today" ran a story with a smaller model of the "stone of hope." and the accompanying story.

it goes on to talk more about

the story. you can see that story from the associated press back in 2009. new york, independent line. brandt, are you there? caller: sorry, i had it on you. before i make my comment, that article there, i cannot leave that there. there was a article about the king children addressing that. it talked about that whole situation being mishandled by dexter king. that money would go to helping renovate the king center sends people were donating for the memorial. donations would obviously be as much because of the economy. that right there, when the media

does things like that, without does things like that, without really giving the perspective, when there was a response to that, that is what is wrong today. host: i appreciate the ad on. go ahead. caller: i want people to note that there are many facets to dr. king and what he stood for. dr. king to me was the quintessential american. he played by the rules. he thought, he demonstrated, what you do in a new democracy. he fought for the rights of people, he challenged the government, unlike some many people, democrats and republicans who listened to c- span and i hear all of these people that are staked out on

their political ideology position that they basically got from talking heads on television, whether msnbc or fox. they are devoid of any critical thinking. thinking. dr. king had the courage to fight for what was right. he fought for working people, he fought for poor people, he fought against the system that oppressed people, for the rights of people. again, for all of us to come together and realize that we are all in one boat. and the corporate elite and the media elite, they are on a totally different level playing field. until americans understand that unless the americans come together, no matter what persuasion, sexual, religious, whatever the case may be, and understand that the people made

the difference. martin luther king galvanize people. host: a couple of business stories, one from the "washington post."

we go next to orlando, florida. ken on the democrats' line. caller: this is just a tremendous program this morning. and specifically the question, how it impacted me, it motivated me to be responsible and accountable. and what i mean is, self-worth and that pride can and the dignity of being a part of this american system. and they stand for nonviolence. i think one thing that with a broken his heart, to see that devastating action of us in our

communities and how we are murdering and killing one another. another. i think we have grown , and we have growth pains. however, however, i spent 22 years in the service and i am a retired military veteran. i acquired the rank of first sergeant in the army. i have lived in the american dream and my wife won the lottery. we have had money. i have had a taste of it all. but i am looking to establish but i am looking to establish that fact that martin left not just a legacy but he left a perception to me that i can do better. i can act better. i can serve a better in this land that is open and free to me. host: from 2 q the wall street

journal -- "all street journal." there was a sharp pullback in new orders and shipments contracted. there was slowing activity elsewhere in the world. a story in the federal page of the "washington post." the u.s. postal service could save $1.2 billion a year --

charles in pennsylvania. you are wrong. caller: my name is laurie and i

am from shaker. is this pedro? host: this is on the air. caller: i am sorry. what i want to say about martin luther king, it is a wonderful legacy. but the african had slavery, and we know what happened to the native american indians. but we had a martin luther king who helps us to stay focused and remember the millions of europeans that fought and died right alongside us for our humanity, for justice, for love, and we have to remember that when we listen to the victory all the comes from the republican party. they do not represent the consciousness of white people. they are just a small niche trying to get a vote and confuse

people. and when i hear martin luther king, he reminds me of all the goodness, all the humanity in people of all races. and that peace is the way to grow, peace and love is what is going to get us out of that. host: of of twitter. pine bluff, ark., dorothy on the independent line. caller: the important thing is that the republicans have caused a class warfare debate that is pitting rich against the poor. and martin luther king was a man of consciousness and equality. if he were alive today, he would not go against this rich against the poor kind of thing. you should try to help the masses and the people. and the republicans come up with

this thing the rich against the poor, is not fair to the american people. host: 10 year anniversary of 9/11. this story. hartford, north carolina, go ahead. beverly on the democrats aligned. caller: i have a lot to say but i will make it short. dr. king would have been very proud that we finally voted in a

black american. however, however, he would turn over in his grave if he saw what was going on in congress today. the blatant head of the industry -- and bigotry is still there. poor people getting kicked around, his last march was supposed to be the poor man's march. and he was not able to make that, of course. he was murdered. this is still the same country, the same country. it is the same old people without the white robes. i am sorry to say this. host: from the "usa today."

one more call, marianna, ark., the democrats' line. caller: i want to tell you that dr. king had a real impact on my life. right now, jim crow esquire physical alive and well. i was demonstrated against in the federal courts. there was a black judge in st. louis who told the eighth circuit court of appeals that if he had been a white judge, they would not have ruled against him. him. they file their refusal on him. what i did, i filed a refusal on

him and he and his wife had a defendant in the case. what the eighth circuit did to me, they discriminated against me and would not let this judge -- there were five of the judges recused in my case. he said no facts on the table why he would recuse them. but a black judge, the eighth circuit told him, you're going to have to tell this white >> one of the events we are covering ahead of this sunday's dedication of the memorial is tonight, with a gala honoring bill global leaders for peace. the site has been moved, as a result of the earthquake on

tuesday. it was to have been at the national building museum. his been moved to the convention center. it is still scheduled to start at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we are hoping to take you live shortly to the white house briefing. that was scheduled to get under way at about 20 minutes ago. we will have it live once it does. also, a pentagon briefing later this afternoon while we wait for the white house, a discussion on the department of justice investigation into the credit rating agency standard and poor's. " continued. host: joining us from new york is louise story, the business reporter for "the new york times." you wrote a story about the justice department looking at standard and poor's. what is going on?

guest: this is unusual. in general, the justice department has been closing out investigations related to the financial crisis. standard and poor's, the ratings company, is very much alive in the investigation. this summer, they have been ramping up their inquiry. i talked to a number of former employees from s&p who have been interviewed by the department of justice, and they told me the kind of questions investigators are asking. in particular, they seem to be interested in whether s&p was raiding mortgage bonds, all of those bundles of mortgage loans before the financial crisis, is the analysts their new they were poor quality and wanted -- is the analysts knew they were poor quality, and wanted to downgrade them, but if they were over- ruled? those are the kind of questions

they are asking host: was this done before or after the story most people remember about s&p one comes to the country's bond rating? guest: that is of great interest because a lot of lawmakers were furious s&p downgraded the united states' rating for the first time in history, but the people i spoke with were interviewed months before that happened. at the very least, it has been going on for a long time. it is hard to know whether the downgrade of the united states will speed up the investigation. host: for the people you talked about, can you tell us the questions they were asked about the process of the mortgage packages they were looking at? guest: first of all, one thing that was interesting to me is they told me when the department of justice opened up the

interviews, they told them this would be a civil case, not a criminal case. you know the just apartment can bring criminal cases. they told -- the justice department can bring criminal cases, but they said they're looking for a civil case here. they also went through e-mail and instances that they have heard about where there was an analyst who said "well, we have this collateralized debt obligation that we want to write such and such way, but if we do that it will cause a downgrade ,f 50 other or 60 other cdo's and a business executive would say do not do that." when they are looking for is that evidence that these were connected. the reason this is important is

because s&p and the other rating agencies, moody's and fitch, they have always said there ratings process was independent from business concerns. it was very important that it was independent because there is this conflict in ratings where the agencies, the rating agencies, they are paid by the party that is being raided. when procter and gamble gets a credit rating, it pays them to rate them, and critics say that as an incentive to be too positive. rating agencies say there analysts are separate from business executives. so, now, the department of justice is looking to see with mortgage securities before the financial crisis, if that tiny wall broke down. host: was there one instance

that set off this investigation or several? guest: there were a lot of different examples, and the examples were still hazy. the people i spoke with did not know exact names of deals, but they had snippets of the e-mails read to them. there was one phrase they were asked about. that was "do not kill the golden goose." an executive at s&p supposedly said that. so, the department of justice ask these witnesses if they had heard this person status. investigators are clearly looking for someone that would go on the stand and say this business executive said this. host: louise story is with the bulk of the new york times" and she is here -- "the new york

times" and she is here to talk about the justice department investigation. journal@c-span.org. guest: people who pay for ratings were investors. if you were an investor, you would pay for their ratings, and then they changed that business model "washington journal so that investors could see the -- change the business model. there has been a lot of evidence that has come out that before

the financial crisis, banks like citibank could create a mortgage bond, and they could go around to moodys, fitch, s&p, and say how are you going to raise it? then, only the ones that gave citigroup an indication that they were going to raise positively would get that business. so, it is something critics say really need to be changed. the party is getting the ratings could not pay for it. joe off of twitter says -- guest: at appears justice is looking to see if the ratings analysts were overruled. after the financial crisis, there were few reforms. the three big companies were

left in an oligopoly. they did not have many changes and forced by washington. now, after the united states lost its aaa from s&p, there is momentum in washington. if the department of justice finds evidence of fraud, it is possible uc new legislation that takes a pair of scissors and cut apart the way these agencies operate. host: what we are talking about was not addressed in the dodd- frank legislation? guest: there were a few. the main thing would be that in a lot of regulations like banks and mutual fund regulations, there are requirements that they deferred to the ratings to drive how they can best their extra cash. these go back to the 1930's. in a sense, the reason these rating agencies have so much power is because the government put in all of these regulations

over many decades -- and need to use the ratings in their investment processes. dodd-frank says that requirement needs to be undone. it has already been on the mostly for mutual funds, but the bank regulators have been dragging their feet, saying it is hard to find something else to refer to. the have not done it yet, but they're supposed to do it. nonetheless, a lot of investors might still use them, so the way of doing business might not change. host: why is the justice department not looking into moodys? guest: it has been clear -- reported that they aren't looking into moodys. -- that they are looking into moodys. a lot of the business practices are similar, so we have to statement.

host: let's take a phone call from new york. eva, democrats line for louise story. caller: if all of this was going on before the plaque president -- black president is going again, why did they not investigate them? by the way, our money is what they are using any way to use all of these trades and whenever they are doing . they need to start trying to put people back to work. i do not see them doing anything with that. host: have people questioned why the justice department is doing this? guest: a lot people have questioned whether this is related to the s&p downgrade of the united states. the people i spoke with were contacted long before that. it is hard to see a direct

connection. the s&p has been threatening for many months that they might downgrade the united states. there are a lot of investigations now in congress as to why the s&p downgrade happened, so maybe those investigations will turn up more evidence. i am sure investigators will look for any possible links between the justice department and s&p. host:, another call from illinois. independent line. don. caller: as i am watching the program, i am reminded of the c- span program i watched that was a committee meeting that had the three rating agencies up there, and they admitted that their ratings were influenced by the fact that if they did not give a aaa rating, they would be fired, and another rating agency would be hired. it is a real crooked game.

guest: there have been a number of hearings. they have been carefully advised from their lawyers and careful on how far they have gone from admitting -- on a meeting anything. -- admitting anything. host: if you want to see the hearing our viewer was talking about, go to c-span.org, type in standard and poor's, or a similar term, and you will get a list of hearings we have taken in on the topic. louise story, if wrongdoing is >> we will break away here to go to the white house. >> reports of 1000, 2000-strong

forces put together fired the united states -- by the united states. >> i do not have any information to ride you about that type of support. there is indication that the u.s. is trying to free up some of the libyan assets that were frozen as part of the embargo that the u.s. put in place several months ago. they are working to free up $1.5 billion in those resources to provide some humanitarian assistance and support to the tmc which is in the early stages, tried to put governmental infrastructure in place there. that is meaningful support and would be helpful to them. but in terms of any additional commitment of resources, nothing in addition to that at this time. >> concern about weapons from

the gaddafi weapons armory falling into the wrong hands. does the administration have concerns about that? >> certainly, that is something that we are monitoring closely, something that we are consulting with the tnc. >> are there any concerns about the ability of the tnc to carry out this transition and an effective and safe way? >> the effort that is under way there is not something that will be easily implemented. i can tell you we do have confidence in the tnc. after all, it was this president that recognized them as the proper ruling entity in that country. we are encouraged by the way that they have conducted themselves so far.

we intend to be a partner and to be supportive of their efforts to put in a governmental structure and transition to a freer libya. >> on the president job proposals, how far along is he on the plan of reaching ideas and so forth, how far along is he? >> it is fair to say that there are detailed policy questions, discussions, evaluation made at the white house in terms of the kinds of things being incorporated into that plan. it is fair to say those are detailed discussions. it is fair to say the president is in the loop in those discussions, that he is aware of the progress they are making, and is weighing in an offering feedback. that is an ongoing process. i do not have anything to add in terms of the details of the

kinds of thing that could be included, but it is fair to say that they are making progress and are reviewing those plans at a pretty granular level. >> [inaudible] >> other than to say that the process is ongoing, i have nothing more to add. >> [inaudible] slow growth for the next several years, and implement the above 8% [inaudible] >> there are a number of things that we have already done that have already been beneficial to the economy, certainly in terms of the recovery act, and jobs created and supported. certainly, the emphasis the president took to strengthen the

automobile industry, the number of jobs protected by that effort is significant. there are also a number of proposals that the president has laid out that has bipartisan support that we have been asking congress to act on. everything from trade deals to patent reforms, to an infrastructure bill that would invest in the roads, rails, and runways for the country. that would also enhance our economy by improving our infrastructure. there are a number of things in place that could help the economy. what the president will be laying out after labor day is what additional measures can be put in place to get that done. >> the cbo also talks about the debt. well over $1 trillion a year. as a candidate, president obama said that then-president bush added $4 trillion in debt and

said that that was irresponsible and unpatriotic. how would you characterize having that much of that? >> let us talk about how the debt was put on the backs of the american people. you had two unfunded wars, a prescription drug benefit that was not funded, and a tax credit for millionaires. the significant portion of that not funded.s >> [inaudible] >> that was a reaction to some of the impact of some of those policies, a country that was on the brink of another depression. those were the kinds of policies that were put in place to pull us back from the brink. today's report indicates that some progress has been made, based on the deal that democrats and republicans struck earlier this month. that is having a tangible impact

on the deficit, in terms of reducing it. but the report makes clear, there is more we have to do. one of the things the president will be talking about next month, in addition to these job- creating ideas, is to go beyond the super committee and their $1.50 trillion deficit-reduction mandate, and do more to address the long-term fiscal challenges facing the country. i think the report validates the progress that has been made and validates the president's assessment that there is more that we should do to address the challenge. >> vice-president biden made a comment that some people thought that he had come to explain economic in china. >> i do not know the full context of his comments. i know that he did go to china, mongolia, and japan to

underscore the increasingly interconnected nature of our economy and world. one of the reasons he spent so much time in china is because the u.s. and china are two of the world's largest economies. so it is important to build -- promote the kind of understanding and good working relationship, because there are economic consequences for that in this country. but in terms of the comments that you are setting, i cannot get to them. >> with respect to the hurricane, even though this is state-by-state, county by county reaction, this is a big storm, all the way up the east coast, of the population centers of the u.s. does the president have a plan to personally look at where shortages may be, where evacuation plans may be falling short, water shortages, food shortages, the sort of thing,

and as a result of that, cut short his vacation? >> i do not have any updates to his schedule. i can tell you that craig fugate is a legitimate expert on these issues. he was the top emergency management official in the state of florida, responsible for leading the response effort to a number of hurricanes in that state. he was actually appointed by gov. judd push. he is a legitimate expert on these issues. -- jeb bush. that is why we are in such close communication with officials up and down the eastern seaboard. i know that his team has pre- deployed teams to north carolina and virginia. they also have some stores of commodities in atlanta. they are looking at very

detailed, logistical evarts to make sure that we have the proper resources deployed here. i will be honest with you, the president has complete confidence in his ability to handle those responsibilities. the president has been briefed on these issues every day since monday. he also had the opportunity to speak to administrator fugate yesterday on the phone. primarily they talked about the earthquake but they also had a conversation about the preparations underway at fema to prepare for hurricane irene. two other things i would say about this. the first is, we would strongly urge residents of these communities in the line of the storm to pay close attention to local officials and the advice they are offering. state and local officials will be the ones making the decisions

about the evacuation orders. we would encourage people not just to listen to the advice and orders given by officials, but to actually follow those orders. the second thing is, there are people out there wondering what they should do to get ready for the storm. they should be visiting ready.gov. this is an important website that we have put together to give you information about our parents for a disaster. >> it seems obvious the president has spoken about it. he will be suggesting [inaudible] stimulus has become a dirty word in washington. why even put it in a new plan? >> what will be included in the plan are some reasonable ideas that can have a tangible impact on creating jobs and improving the economy. it is also things that republicans should be able to support. even the ideas that i cited

earlier, in terms of an infrastructure bill, extending the payroll tax cuts for middle- class americans. all of these are the kinds of things that have bipartisan support. we are going to have some additional ideas that should have bipartisan support. so there is no reason that the good ideas that the president will be putting forward will get bogged down in politics. >> [inaudible] >> and the president has articulated his frustration over that. the american people voted for divided government, but not dysfunctional government. we need to put in the policies that are in the best interest for the country and for those who are still out there looking for jobs. >> you mentioned part of the humanitarian aid will be unfrozen libyan assets. the president made a long-term commitment to helping the tnc in

nation building. can you tell the nation how long this country will be involved in helping libya gets on its feet, and how much will it cost in taxes? >> even the resources that will be released to the tnc, $1.5 billion in assets, should provide them a significant start in building up the kind of infrastructure they need, providing a humanitarian relief that is so badly needed. the truth is, this is an easy way for us to stand on the side of the libyan people, support their efforts, support a government that will signal to freedom and democracy, and that is something that we remain committed to. in terms of predicting the future, that is not something that i will get into. there are some things we can do, like releasing these frozen

assets, which can be very beneficial to them, which at this point, does not require taxpayer assistance. >> can the taxpayers be ready for a five, 10-year commitment? >> what has certainly been the effort -- different about this effort is there is no military presence on the ground. the president was able to provide the kind of leadership and support for the tnc in close coordination with our allies in the region, and we were able to make that commitment without putting boots on the ground. that does distinguish it from the situation that exists right now in iraq. >> the american citizens probably think that once gaddafi is found, presumably captured and killed, that america is done, but that is not the case. this is a long-term commitment to the people of libya. >> is a strong commitment to the

people of libya as they work to build the infrastructure needed to have a free and democratic libya. >> the last estimate i saw placed the rebel control of tripoli and 85% to 90%. do you know what it is now? >> i am not in a position from this podium to offer a play-by- play on the dynamic conditions in libya. it is clear the rebels have made a lot of progress in the last few days, but it is clear there are some fighting going on and locations. >> there is obviously a lot of chaos in the streets. top officials meeting on thursday. do you know what message diplomats are giving to rebel forces to help them bring order in the short term? >> we have been in close consultation with the tnc. i cannot say anything about what diplomats have been doing from

other countries, but i can tell you what we have been doing. we continue to work with the tnc. there is an ongoing nato mission to support on the ground, embargoes, that sort of thing. we also talked about releasing this $1.5 billion in frozen assets. so there are a number of things that the u.s. can do to support the tnc. >> could you give us a sense, since the transition is not happening as quickly as the president was hoping for, exactly what the u.s. commitment is over all? beyond that, i know that you said there will not be u.s. troops on the ground. is the administration pushing nato, european countries to contribute?

should there be boots on the ground, even if it is not from the u.s.? >> that was a lot of questions. when jobs out at me is the timing here. muammar gaddafi was a tiring that ruled his country with an iron fist for 42 years. in the space of the last six months, we have seen a group of rebels, with the support of the international community and the u.s., over for that regime. so i think that time frame is pretty remarkable. he had been in power for 42 years, overthrown in six months. that is significant and the pace of that change is remarkable. in terms of the way forward, it will be difficult. there are difficult months, difficult years ahead. i should say this -- as a tyrant

in libya, muammar gaddafi used the resources of his country to perpetrate a horrible acts against americans and people around the world. i think there is a pretty tangible interest that we have in supporting the libyan people, as they put in place the kind of government that will support freedom that will support democracy, that will allow them to be a constructive member of the international community. so i think there is an important reason why we were going to stand shoulder to shoulder with the libyan people as they move through these changes. >> as far as whether the white house believes there should be some sort of international presence on the ground? >> as i pointed out to david earlier, the significant changes that have been wrought with libya with the international

community have all taken place without american boots on the ground. >> did the president leave the golf course at all yesterday to take the conference call on the earthquake? >> the poll that you were all in yesterday probably did not move, so the president i do not think change locations. >> for the jobs portion of this plan, -- >> an ongoing policy process. >> deficit reduction compared to the recommendations of the committee [inaudible] >> i will have to check on that. i do not believe so. as you know, there were a number of proposals that the president had weighed with his conversation with speaker banner that would have led to a larger deficit reduction package. i suspect some of the ideas in that packet were some of the thing that could be produced in

the news, but i do not have been sent said that policy proposal is locked. >> [inaudible] he said that it would be very difficult [inaudible] there was a good chance that congress would have to end up pulling the trigger. [inaudible] >> what we have said throughout the process, just because the dollar number is smaller does not mean it is necessarily easier to move through the process. in the view of the white house, there is a significant benefit for members of congress to move off of their preliminary negotiating positions to seek common ground here that will polyamine making sacrifices and supporting things in the package that human and otherwise

support. but by reaching a compromise, we can do something significant. that is what constituents, democrats, republicans, independents are looking for. they want to do with the long- term fiscal challenges. so if there is an opportunity for us to do something bigger than $1.50 trillion, i think that is something that many members of congress could find support for. >> [inaudible] >> it is fair to say the white house and president will lay out specific ideas on how to enact something, how the super committee can go beyond their 1.5 trillion dollar mandate. >> [inaudible] >> i think it is pretty evident

from the reports we are seeing, reports on the ground, that he is certainly not ruling in a way that he has. his compound has been overrun on the ground. but there are a number of developments that indicate that his grip on power has slipped. >> the president, has he been briefed on the meeting between kim jong il and dmitry medvedev? any contact with anybody before after? >> i do not know the answer to that. we will have to get back to you. >> given the house republicans track record on the president's economic proposals, to what extent would this september speech be a political statement , a deer for the republicans to oppose it? -- dare for the republicans to

oppose it? >> i think it is fair to say the president is dismayed by the frequency in which people have taken this argument and have turned it into politics. we should be having a legitimate debate about putting policies in place to create jobs. i believe that there will be some who will see the speech and dismiss it as politics. i can tell you what the president is committed to doing. he is committed to rising above partisan rancor and putting in place the kinds of policies that have bipartisan support that will strengthen the economy and create jobs. that is what this proposal will be about. that is what the economic team is working so hard on to put together. we are hopeful -- and the president made reference to this when he was on his bus tour last week. he is hopeful there will be members of congress, at who after a few weeks in their home districts, will come back to

washington with a greater willingness to put the country ahead of their own political calculation. if they are willing to do that, they will find lots of things in the speech that they will like. >> a couple of quick questions on libya. the president the other day said that gaddafi's control had unraveled, that his power had come to an end. you seem to be indicating today that he still has some semblance of authority. >> i do not mean to suggest that. his grip on power has slipped, no doubt about that. our assessment is the same as when the president delivered his remarks on sunday. >> after 42 years, what makes the administration, and those who have been in contact with the tnc, believe that their formal democracy will not be

similar to ours? >> we have good coordinating relationships with the tnc. we are optimistic about what they say they would like their government to look like. the kinds of values that they are espousing leave us with a lot of optimism about their future. but we are committed to working closely with them as they put together the kind of government they would like to see. >> this week after labor day is looking increasingly crowded. [inaudible] is there any chance the president is going to make a speech that we? -- week? >> i do not have any more specificity as to the timing. just that it will be after labor day. this is something that the

president believes is pretty important, and will be an opportunity for him to lay out some initiative that should garner bipartisan support to strengthen our economy and create jobs. but in terms of the timing, no additional details. >> [inaudible] >> i do not think there is any doubt in the minds of the people at the white house putting together the schedule that you and your colleagues in the news media will give that speech to be a corporate level of attention. >> [inaudible] are there new stimulus ideas, tax cuts, credits that we can expect as part of this package? >> there will be some ideas that the president will lay out in his speech that i expect you and others will consider to be new ideas. that does not mean that the president is, in any way,

backing away from some of the things that we have already talked about, that already have bipartisan support that the congress should be moving on. there are a number of things that would do good for the economy. this speech is to make good on those ideas and offer up new suggestions on how to strengthen the economy. >> is he talking to republicans through this process? [inaudible] >> in the last couple of days, i do not know if he has had those conversations. he spent a lot of time over the summer talking to republicans on the hill about how long term fiscal situation. it is fair to say he has had extensive consultation with them. i would not certainly will not -- i would certainly not rule out future conversation with them. our goal here is to put in place

policies that will strengthen the economy, produce jobs, and should produce a bipartisan support in the congress. it is our job to make sure that we have a good sense of what republicans like and could support. that will be reflected in the speech the president gives after labor day. >> is the president considering a proposal, citing an executive order, that all renewed or new contracts with the federal government create a job creation clause? there had been one specific proposal that would involve a net increase of 1% in payroll. is that something that the president thinks makes sense? >> i have seen those reports, but i do not have any information about that. why don't we connect afterwards and i will try to give you some information. >> those two proposals that you

talked about, would that be separate from this speech? >> these are proposals that the jobs council is reviewing. the president give them the charge to explore these ideas. the president will certainly incorporate the work of the jobs council into the ongoing policy process related to the speech. again, i cannot say whether or not it will be included because the process is ongoing, but it is fair to say the president expects to draw on the work and expertise of those serving on the job council into the policy- making process. >> we know that two proposals that he could talk about are the two that you mentioned. >> sure, he is taking input from this jobs council. >> in addition to mr. fugate,

who is he talking to? >> mr. brennan is the primary contact. he had been the primary point of contact. at this stage, the most important thing is for the professionals at the mud to be in connection with their counterparts at the state and local level. that is where this preparation effort will be administered. so that effort is underway. there are a couple of teams that have already been deployed to north carolina and virginia. some commodity stocks that have been deployed to make sure that they can be delivered quickly if needed. that court nation is going on -- coordination is going on between federal response officials and state and local response officials. >> can you tell us, other than

the readouts that we have seen, perhaps some names of celebrities or business leaders that the president has spent time with, people that have come to visit him? >> one of the reasons the president wanted to spend some down time was to get the opportunity to get away from the limelight a little bit. certainly, he cannot do that completely. he has had some important things to participate in in the last few days. i think the seeking to find other people in the limelight to spend time with has not been his principal objective. >> [inaudible] >> i have not seen that. hopefully improving. >> how much time is he spending on all these things you are talking about compared to spending time with his family? >> i am not prepared to give you an up-to-the-minute readout of

that, but from what we offered, he spent a good deal of time with the day-to-day things as being president, as a well as things that we have seen in the past few days with libya, an earthquake, preparations for the hurricane. it is fair to say that he has gotten an opportunity to spend some time with his daughters before they go back to school. that is something that he has enjoyed quite a bit. >> can you tell us if there are u.s. intelligence assets on the ground in libya helping to find good coffee? >> i cannot. if you want to redirect that question to the department of defense -- >> can you, if there is any intelligence on the ground at all? >> i cannot. >> and during the earthquake? >> he was told soon after, he did not feel it, but in terms of

who told him, the mechanics, i do not know. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know what his reaction was. >> the potential for the president changing his plans -- i know you say that you do not have any announcements. has it been discussed that the president could go home early? >> at this point, i do not think it has. we are obviously watching the weather reports closely. if there is an indication that that would factor into the scheduling changes, we will obviously take the appropriate measures, but i do not know of any conversations like that that have occurred. >> you talk about the white house watching the developments unfolding. has the president been watching the coverage of what has been going on over the last 24 hours or so? >> i have got to be honest, i do not know if he has seen the television coverage. he is obviously keen on what is

being reported on television. he is certainly what is aware of being -- what is being reported on television but i do not know if he has seen those television reports firsthand. >> is he mostly watching fox or-- [laughter] the environmental legacy. what do you think his environmental legacy is over all as we approach 2012? >> one of the hallmark achievements of this administration, something that will have a tangible impact on our environment and also on the economy, are the cafe standard agreements that the president reached with automakers, manufacturers of large trucks and buses. some of the advance and that

have put in place with the private sector are the kinds of things that will come over the long term, tens of the impact our environment for the better. this is one of those policy decisions that falls into the category of a win-win. when people look back at some of the advances made on environmental policy over the last 2.5 years, that it probably one of the most significant things. >> all of these new super pacs being created. the president has talked about the influence of money in politics. super pacs have a supe on both sides raising millions of dollars. what does the president think of that?

>> he has said in the interest of good government, the reason for full disclosure. that principle of transparency, as far as who is bankrolling his outside groups. that is something that the american people and journalists should have the right to investigate why those donations might have been offered up. again, this is -- campaign finance reform is something that has fallen victim to political wrangling on capitol hill. we are in a position where, because democrats and republicans have been unable to find common ground on this issue, the result is a policy or environment that is not in the best interest of the american people. the president is interested in working with republicans to try to resolve these issues, and we will see if we get a similar corresponding effort on the other side. >> [inaudible]

what does the president say when he hears this? when his reaction? -- what is his reaction? >> my sense is that he will be focused on doing his job. he is responsible for this job, wherever he is. whether he is in the oval office or he is, on the golf course when an emergency takes place. he has been able to convene these calls with his top national security team to ensure the response efforts are proceeding to pace. he can be confident that the preparation that fema is putting in place and advance of hurricane i read are moving at a rate that they should be. -- irene moving at a rate that

they should be. the president is focused on doing his job. he is the president wherever he goes. but also, taking the advantage of an opportunity at the end of the summer to spend some time with his wife and daughters. i think he has been able to do both of those things in the last few days. one final question? >> [inaudible] has he consulted with any former members of congress on how to get this sort of thing through congress? >> off the top of my head, i cannot think of any former member of congress that the president has consulted with. but one of the things the president is committed to doing is putting in the kinds of proposals that republicans should be able to support. there are a number of good ideas out there that would create jobs. the only thing holding it up right now is partisan rancor on the hill.

the american people voted for divided government, not this function of government. it is our hope and the president's hope that members of congress will come back from the august recess prepared to put aside their own political interest to act in interest of the economy. the president is hopeful he can jump start that process by delivering this economic address shortly after labor day, and we will move on from there. >> [inaudible] >> i do not have any additional updates as far as the venue. when we get that, i will make sure you are amongst the first to know. everyone enjoy your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the spokesperson was asked about the libyan update. the security council will be

meeting at 3:00 this afternoon to discuss the release of $1.5 billion in frozen assets. coming up at 2:00, coverage from the pentagon, a briefing they're dealing with china. a look here at the martin luther king jr. memorial, which will be dedicated on sunday. this evening, live coverage of a gala honoring global leaders for peace. among those speaking, ron kirk and madeleine albright, former secretary of state. because of the earthquake yesterday, it has been moved over to the convention center. of course, that is ahead of this weekend's coverage of the dedication of the memorial. coverage begins live at 11:00 eastern on c-span and c-span radio and also streamed live on c-span.org. guests will also include jesse jackson congressman -- jackson,

congressman ron lewis, and others. >> notice the color of the bourbon. that pretty amber color that you see is all coming from the char on the inside of the barrel. this char is where burping gets a lot of its color and a lot of its flavor. currently, they have discovered over 200 chemical flavors in the oak and char from the barrel. >> this weekend, we highlight

frankfort, kentucky on "book tv." vice, violence, corruption, an urban renewal. tv" a visit to buffalo trace distillery. one of only four distilleries in operation during prohibition, for medicinal purposes, of course. and stop by the old state capital. >> with the new school year getting under way, a debate on reforms affecting teachers and impact on state budget cuts, a teacher pensions, and other health benefits.

randi weingarten takes part, along with the american enterprise institute education policy director frederick hess. this is hosted by the fordham institute. this is 90 minutes and we will show you as much as we can until the pentagon briefing gets under way at 2:00 eastern. we are one of the leading education think policy think tank here in washington and in our home town of dayton. we cannot just talk about education reform, but we do it on the ground. we are proud about that. very excited to be moderating today's session, a session where the idea came from rich and randi. i understand and they run into

each other from time to time, and all of the debate around these various reforms pushed through this year is often more heat than light. so what can we do to get together to have a conversation that does not paper over our differences on these key issues -- admits that there are some differences on which way to go -- but does not affect it in a way that is as personal or vitriolic as the public debates have often been. that is the goal for today. not to pretend that there are not this agreement on key issues, but to identify them, and if possible, where there is common ground. of course, randi weingarten, president of the american federation of teachers. frederick hess, director of education policy studies at the american enterprise institute. my job as moderator is to be fair. i do not think i can claim to be impartial. rick is one of my best friends, we collaborate on a lot of things, including our education

podcast. if you are not listening, you are missing out on his latest musings about the world and pop culture. we did know that we were going to be having c-span taping this, so we are excited that rick decided to wear pants for the occasion. with our format, you would have been looking at his knees the whole time, and i am not sure that america is ready for that. so what we are going to document today are the big reforms related to teachers that have been vigorously debated in the past couple of years, but especially the spring, in states run the country. with the education reform conversation, we have brought of different ideas over the years, accountability, charters, but now it seems a conversation is getting to the heart of enterprise. what happens in the classroom?

it is directly around to professional lives. talking about things like about the wedding teachers in new ways. laying off teachers based on the effectiveness of instead of seniority. paying teachers differently anti-nafta performance. curtailing collective bargaining rights. these are things that did a very personal very quickly. so we want to talk about all these issues and have a polite but vigorous discussion and agreement. i come to this discussion -- and we were recruited into playing this role -- and happy to do so. i should admit, there is some skepticism. i want to read a quotation from stephen brill the other day. just to set some context. by the way, randi, he said that you had conducted 24 hours worth of interviews. >> actually, that is not true, but it did feel like 24 hours to

me. >> he says, "the column by of feeling he gets from union leaders sitting on panels with reformers discussing what is best for children, or when you come through their financial records and see how they continue to sponsor the politicians to take the most hard-line and to reform positions and punish those to support the mild reforms they even claim to support." so that is some context here. we want to make sure that we are being honest about when there are significant disagreements. let's see if we can find some common ground. so we are going to start with a broad topic of teachers and reform, particularly, the idea of teachers feeling under attack. let me start with you, randi, is it your sense that teachers feel under attack? is this anecdotal or do we have

good data? what is it that is making them feel under attack right now? >> thank you. i am glad we are doing this. there are people who actually work in the summer in washington, d.c. this is proof of that. michael, thank you for moderating. even the introduction, think about what he said. as you were quoting back, which was pretty demagogic, i was wondering whether my walking around colorado a few days before michael bennett's reelection for senate qualifies as one of those things. so what ends up happening in this debate -- you said it -- it gets so polarized. as opposed to engaging in a real

way, you end up first having to defend yourself, which seems silly in a world where we are actually trying to figure out how to educate kids. this is why teachers feel under attack. a new poll just came out last week. two weeks ago? i do not know. i lose track of time as i get older. one of the most interesting results of that poll was that even though teachers are respected more than ever before, more than administrators, policymakers, and even more than parents. i say parents because parents have an important role in all that we do.

they said that two-thirds of the reporting that they see on education is negative. so when you have that steady drumbeat of negativity, when people are called names, even the growth characterization's that bill repeatedly makes in the book, people feel badly about it. even, mike, when you were talking about this kind of obsession about how we are focused on teachers. you used the word evaluating, laying off teachers, paying teachers. i used to teach full and part- time in brooklyn. my teacher voice started saying, what about the tools and conditions i need to do my job? and that is never actually in the debate, even though what

teachers and unions have said to us is, help us get the conditions and tools we need to get -- to do our job. you can look at lots of different things, but over and over again, that is why teachers feel badly. the economic situation has, i think, made it worse. >> what do you think, rich, our teachers under attack? >> this is something where randi and i attack this from two different points. she did make some good points. as we hold anybody accountable for the work we do, it makes sense to put them in a position to succeed. rules and conditions. that is absolutely fair. second, randi alluded to the point of two-thirds of the coverage being negative. i do not know what to make of that. i do not have the research on that, but when i think about the coverage of health care,

transportation, airlines, banking, it strikes me that two- thirds is probably not an unusual mix in terms of coverage of anything in the public domain. the couple of specific points. we know that in 1984, 50% of americans polled gave teachers an a or b. today, it is 69%. -- today it is3% two-thirds. so one interesting result from this teach for america, the steam for the future profession seem to have raised dramatically. a more fundamental point i want to make is there is this kind of narrative out there that you have these mean-spirited, particularly republican, governors who are on the warpath against teachers.

i think that is an enormously problematic reading of what these folks have said. what scott walker had said, he said it is broke -- we are broke, it is time that we stood up for the truth. he said i have respect for the government employees of wisconsin. they are hardworking, good professionals. another perspective was that it was about money. we do not have any more to give. governor chris christie said last fall, we have to get realistic in telling the people the truth. nobody wanted the teachers laid off. i would argue that this does not sound like to me as demagoguery. these elected leaders, i think, have actually been quite measured. in response, if you think back to wisconsin, it was compared to pre-nazi germany.

walker was compared to hitler and mubarak. the speakers house was threatened with an e-mail. we plan to threaten you and assault you. the senator had his windshield broken with a message that said we will hunt you down, slid your throat, drink your blood, and i will put your head on a pike in madison square. this is your last warning. there were thousands of these that were collected and investigated. so the notion that it was somehow those pushing throwback the bargaining were using vitriol on the warpath and their opponents were being measured and responsible it is, to me, a misreading of the dialogue. >> i agree with you, rick, at any time -- i am very concerned

about the demagoguery. in fact, years ago, i got in big trouble when i said educators have a right, a freedom of speech, but we also have a responsibility in terms of how we use it. i got in trouble for saying that by lots of people who said you should just protect the freedom of speech. our wisconsin federation's also got these kinds of death threats. when i see people put up signs comparing a public figure to hit our, i denounce that. i think that is wrong. -- hitler, i denounced that. we need to be careful about the origins of fascism and we need to be careful about protecting our democracy. but where i diverge from you is

the facts are very different from what you said in terms of wisconsin. and the facts with chris christie are different. i watched the video of when a teacher said something to christie, and he went right at her and believe that teacher. and that was a public official doing it in a very demagogic way. i also watched the wisconsin unions basically tell walker we will negotiate these issues, and he refused. he never met with them once. the issue is not budget. the issue was whether or not they have a right to collectively bargain. what we saw right after walker was elected was that the contract that the last governor and state employees had done,

which included millions of dollars in concessions, walker found a way to reject using the state senate. so this was not about budget. this was actually about getting rid of rights. the piece that you did not say, the piece that everyone started shaking their head about, was that when walker pushed through the budget repair bill initially, he also said that he would call the state police out because he expected there to be violence. if you remember, that call with the koch brothers, they were going on and on about what they were trying to do, including trying to infiltrate the crown to try to create that kind of violence. so in terms of