air. these are all social welfare- kinds of issues. the upshot of this failure to develop an adequate social welfare and that is the difficulty you have by and achieving the economy. you are also losing talent. >> the third trend i would like to point out is pollution. it is clear that over the past 30 years, this extraordinary economic growth in china has occurred on the back of the environment. there has been poor implementation of environmental regulations and a lot and lax oversight. it has allowed china our country to china being the low-cost manufacturing center of the world. if you can dump your waste water

into the river next to your factory, it is less expensive. what we have seen over the past 10 years is that the environment is beginning to fight back with the chinese economy. the chinese have done a lot of work on these issues. the history of the environmental protection says the cost to the gdp of china from environmental degradation and pollution is 10%. nobody knows if that is accurate. the chinese ministry environment is putting it out there. it is on their minds as a serious concern. there is the issue of social unrest. you can barely open a newspaper even here in the united states without reading about another environmental protests, whether in the rural areas or the cities in china. one of the first things you always talk about is, how is the pollution in beijing?

it is constantly in the minds of people who go to china. if i would think the thing that was most serious when it comes to trends of and by mental degradation, it was the -- would be water degradation and land scarcity. the most overarching and the most critical is the limited nature of political reform today in china. if we try to think about how this can fuel economic growth, we think of it in two different ways. the lack of transparency and official accountability, the lack of rule of law allows for things like illegal land grabs and violations of intellectual property rights and poor product quality. all of these things also

permits rapid development. it may be counterintuitive, but i think china has been fitted and chinese economic growth has been a faded -- benefited from the corrupt nature of its political system. it has been beneficial for many catch up economies like south korea. you have the ability to allocate capital efficiently to targets to develop infrastructure. now china wants to move up the value chain and wants to be an innovation economy. maybe they can accomplish some of this by going out. part of the way is by accessing technology and companies and other things that are abroad. it is clear that they want to be

able to do that at home. developing an innovation economy demands a different kind of political system. it demands openness, transparency, quality products. it demands rule of law and support of intellectual property. they believe corruption has only gotten worse over the past years. it is detrimental to the entrepreneurial spirit and economic activity. in the words case, the chinese political system contributes to things like the train accident or the loss of life from shoddy construction. that is an issue of life that china is going to have to grapple with more directly than it has to. i would like to mention the rise of the internet.

this is pretty exciting. internally, china is probably one of the most exciting areas of change. i was reading a piece recently that was describing what was going on. this platform has 800 million products for sale. dell's 48,000 parts per minute. -- it sells 48,000 products per minute. it is extraordinary what has happened in just a few years in terms of the commerce in china. -- ecommerce in china. the internet is bringing to the chinese people everything they can i get from the real political system, which is transparency, officials accountability, and the rule of law. i have gone over my time. i will simply conclude by

saying that i highlight these trends because they have contributed to fuel chinese economic growth. they meet -- may be at the point where they act as a constraint. the chinese leadership may provoke a restate of the one child policy and the balance of distribution of investment from heart too soft infrastructure if they want -- hard to soft infrastructure. [applause] >> thank you. i want to probe 3 or four areas that i want the audience to question you on. can we start with the official pronouncement of the five-year plan and the ideas being played out representing continuity.

or do they represent a shift? you have written about the continuity that the current plan repeats a lot of the targets. do you want to say a little bit about how you see the policy dynamic within china? explain your position about balancing continuity and change and whether this pivots toward more welfare domestically. >> as i suggested in my remarks, the jury is still out. this represents an inclusion of the buyers of the previous plan. there is more of an emphasis -- desires of the previous plan. i look to see what the results are on the ground. no sweat less interested in what the targets are and what he promises are and more interested in the results and what emerges

after or did -- or during the five years. what they say does not go at the local level. it may play out differently from the targets as they are set. the effort to improve the environment has been going, but the investment has not changed. look at the level of investment and factored out the corruption that is going to make some of that investment go to the wrong places. then try to decide whether or not you are going to see fundamental changes in the direction that the five-year plan seems to promise. >> there is a lot of continuity in the rhetoric in terms of what the party is about and what we are going to do next.

one sees a lot of the same themes, more emphasis on harmonious development, more emphasis on the urgency of addressing a whole list of things that elizabeth underscored. where i think there is less continuity is in the more advanced areas of china recognizing that at an inflection point. growth has turned into a diminishing marginal utility. you cannot get the same kind of high-quality and high rate of growth out of an economy once it gets to $12,000 per capital, which is where shanghai is. you cannot do it that way. intellectual property has to make up a much bigger chunk once you get to that point. there is no more process of

production savings to be found by cutting off water and all those things that china has done to deliver this kind of growth. we see the inflection of the willingness of firms willing to invest in assets abroad. margins are starting to be not so exciting for them at home. we have continuity in terms of rhetoric and reality. we are already into inflexion territory. the discourse inside china has some confusion. of whether china is doing what it needs to do to manage this transitional period. >> we have chinese businesses in the u.s. you put up with citing figures about chinese businesses. in the launch of your report,

secretary gary locke said it is great we have so many chinese businesses investing in the states, but there is an imbalance. we look to the day when china is as open to us as we are to them. what is your reading of what he said? do you buy that argument? do you see this imbalance he pointed to? >> embassador gary locke has tremendous experience with this issue. you can argue either way. americans were ready to invest in china 50 years before china opened to foreign investment. many of them were born in shanghai in the 1920's. this was not a new story for america, incorporate when the 1970's and 1980's rolled around. there is $15 billion of american assets in china at least, maybe more. there is only $14 billion of chinese assets in the united

states. who is more open? what the ambassador meant is that the process is more straightforward on the u.s. side. much more attention is given to the process for investment in the united states. compared to any other regime applied to international investors, the system that the u.s. maintains is fairly straightforward. it is looking for national security issues 98.8% of the time. investing in china is not straightforward either. in many ways, it is less predictable. the interesting thing about this question is that, now that chinese firms are investing in america, people are going to start looking at how the chinese regime works on their side in a new way and asking, is there really parity in how we treat one another's companies when

they come to do business? >> liz, you have written that the world needs to assure that china respects the interests of others was its sixth to meet its own needs. how? >> it sounds like i could have said that about so many different things. >> you were talking about china's economic move overseas and how companies were globalizing. you were also making a point about the malta on -- multinational system. >> when we are thinking about , one's going out strategy of the difficult things in china is that it is still in the process of developing a lot of rules and regulations and trying to figure out what it was to do and setting its own standards. that could make it more difficult for foreign investors. china will put out a kind of

rule our policy announcement about innovation or a dream dam and when the international theory descends on beijing, it backtracks and things are applied differently from one moment to the next. part of the challenge in terms of investing in china has to do with the fact that is in a time of transition as it figures out how it wants to develop its own the economy. that is not something that the u.s. was looking forward. in terms of chinese companies going out and living up to what they demands of others, what i think i meant by that is that we see chinese companies go off into latin america, africa, and asia. in many respects, they are not bringing best practices.

when it comes to environmental standards and labor and safety standards, a lot of other chinese enterprises from the provincial level are bringing their own work practices in this regard. it is hard to respect that these companies are going to behave better abroad than they behave at home. that is what the chinese government asks multinational governments for. oftentimes, chinese capacity is higher than other developing countries. initially, they have a lot of leeway. more and more, people in these countries are resisting this kind of chinese corporate labor and environmental practices. >> the suggestion of how

influence -- how the chinese approach could be change or influence -- do you think it should be through a political level or a business to business level? >> there are lots of things china could do in terms of signing on to transparency initiatives and best practices. they are not quite ready to do that. i think it has to come at both levels, both because of a local address the political commitment -- both the political commitment. perhaps things will change in china and the united states with the political capacity is stronger and will demand higher standards. that makes another way in which those companies attain higher

standards and bring those standards to the developing markets as well. >> one of the side effects for china of getting so much done in a short time over the past 30 years is that in the commercial space, what often says all chinese companies have original sin. if you look deep enough into any chinese arms, you --5 fimrm -- firms, you can find a permit that needed to be rushed and maybe it was done by the mayor's brother and did not consider what dumping that -- into the river would do. the chinese network and fabric of relationships and political considerations provide some kind of predictability on whether those firms are going to be shut down due to regulatory problems. as soon as they leave that

environment, as soon as they come to earth, there is a whole different set of rules. it is not necessarily the government that will use that against them. it is short sellers that will use the fact that they may have missed dated their assets back home as a way to exact a trading value of their equities. far listed. this is not something the chinese government can negotiate. hundreds of thousands of firms have this kind of irregularity in batted in their court but-- embedded in their corporate balance sheets. this is not something that can be handed over. the only way for china to do that is not by some ubiquitous slogan, but by doing it the hard way, by enforcement, by giving folks the job of making sure

firms abide by their own rules and regulations. >> in panel 6, i hope this issue can be picked up. before we ask the audience to come in, i wonder if we can address and implicit idea in the title of this session. there is an implicit rival in the title of this session. we were talking about the professor, whose argument is that the model of chinese- american rivalry is wrong. his argument is that china is powering innovation in the united states and there is a new kind of partnership. his argument is based on a detailed look at the integrated nature of global development,

across boundaries. what do you say about this fundamental issue of whether we should see threats or opportunity in the changes underway in china? >> there was such a thing of the beijing consensus that would explain why china has developed so quickly in a short time. i have always found it to be silly. when i looked at china, i saw tariff levels cut from 50% sign to 4%. $1.50 trillion in foreign investment in china. it was a fairly i.m.f.-friendly approach. too go-go capitalism without learning the lessons of the left that the world had learned the hard way over 100 years.

you actually have to respect worker rights and the environment. those are bills that have to be paid overtime. -- over time. it is a different conclusion one draws when one starts with that in mind. >> it is problematic to put the united states and china out as economic rivals. the media has a tendency to do a rush job on technology in china and investment and get the president and congress all riled up. innovation will occur here and there and it will occur in partnership -- occur there and in partnership. it is the only way forward. it is the wrong way to find the

future and the united states and for the rest of the world. >> we have 10 minutes for questions and comments. do we have a microphone or do people just shaw? >> we can repeat the question? . [inaudible] >> he made a comment that the total is $14 trillion. what was that over the last three years? there is a dramatic increase in the gross domestic product in china. what does that mean for the united states in creating jobs

and bringing back capital back to our shores? >> he wants to know more about the scope for increased investment in china. >> appeared to $2.40 trillion, it is nothing. that is the bad news. that tells us we have an extraordinary story ahead of us to come. . is as aere china global investor today, told investment in china around the world is $300 billion. to 2020, we should see $2 trillion of additional mergers and acquisitions and investment by 2020. around the world.

how much of that will come to the united states? traditionally, about 15% will come to america. whether america will be as attractive in 2020 as it has been in the past is up to us to decide here in this country. you could have foreign direct investors come here on a fire sale to buy assets that cannot be used productively. they could come here because this is the best economy in the world to be invested in. which of those two narrative describes the opportunity in the u.s. is up to our congress and our leadership and our businesses to figure out if we can get maximum american opportunity back on track. >> fred tipson. how about the wholesale political and economic impact of

china? there is a rivalry. your economy -- our economy is better than your economy. where do they register those views? what do the conditions of the global economy implied for them? will depend -- will they turn their interest from domestic to global? >> i think they have already done that. they started to talk about the potential for no longer having -- making international currency. from that moment forward, they have began to -- begun to shape the dialogue. there are discussions going on

between the united states and china on the international ization of the chinese yuan. they are already shaping the global economy enormously from all of their foreign directed investments throughout the world. they are having a profound impact on the way business is being done. exporting their labor. we may put transparency and good government conditions on ski abroad -- sdi abroad. you have hundreds of thousands of chinese working in africa. there are lots of ways in which china is shaping the global economy. australia,nomy,

resource rich countries are being fueled. it is only because of china's economic growth that they have come back to life. >> i agree with that. i would only add that the way in which china is impacting all of our markets and our economies comes quite a bit before china's official willingness to take responsibility for how it is impacting those markets. it is one thing to say that without beijing accepting a role for itself in terms of international currency matters -- there is the international climate of currencies -- or the willingness to say that 4% of gdp is too much. that is a strong commitment given where china is in terms of its impact internationally. they are having this impact by

virtue of their private and state-owned companies and their impact on the world. they are not accepting an international responsibility for themselves. they are of two mines in terms of what is in a their-- stress -- minds in terms of if it is in their interest to accept responsibility. >> there are two important divisions. there are reactive powers and proactive powers in the world. in traditional foreign policy, china has been a reactive power. it will probably remain as such. the economic question is whether it will go from being a reactive power to a proactive power. the second question is its move from a big dayvoto -- being a veto point to an action point.

having the confidence to use your veto is not the same as having the confidence to take action. this is the debate china is going to have to embrace in a serious way. there is no such word as stakeholder in mandarin. there is such a word as responsible. i talk about responsible solvency. we have to recognize the importance of the political identity of the nation and the state. it has to do with what you do in your own borders affecting the international system. becomes cases i have had with chinese leaders suggest responsibility in the economic reign.

there is time for one more question. yes, sir? >> if you take the premise that diversity in thought, gender ais good and you look at china and you look at the united states as a melting pot, how you think that will impact their ability to be a world power? >> it is an interesting question. the one child department has launched a program to look outside china to bring in the best minds in the sciences from around the world. i had a conversation last night.

it has been a nemesis successful -- it has not been enormously successful yet. i was talking to somebody who is involved in the technology field in china and who is involved in the creative fields. he says it is never going to work because non-chinese cannot understand china or the political culture. they are not chinese. i was taken aback. there are two different minds within china about how much they want to except from the outside world. as always been the case. and how much they want to retain what is unique about the country. the same is going to hold true in terms of how they interact with people coming into the country and how open they want to be to people immigrating to

their country and being open and taking advantage of the best the world has to offer the way the united states does. >> china is 94%. there are 700,000 americans working for a japanese affiliate countries in the united states. i do not think the fact of hogan 80 in china necessary -- homogeneity in china a facts -- howaffects house except -- affects how success with china can be.

it is a more international baseline and many of us think. the power of the chinese culture is so strong that is taking some time to get accustomed to the notion that other cultures in the world need to be seen on a level playing field. there are things to be understood, not just relationships to be bought or built. there are talk -- there is talk of chinese firms coming to the united states. they say, tell me need to talk to to get this done. there is not one relationship that is going to do it. you are going to have to learn what it understands the would- what it means to employ and manage americans. -- what it means to manage and deploy americans.

you are going to have to do the hard stuff, which is not so easy even after 30 years of 10% growth. >> let me abuse my position as chair and have the last word. i spent last week teaching at the stanford business school. i was struck by the nba program and the ph.d. program. the determination of the chinese government sponsored students to study abroad. there is an extraordinary commitment to understanding the rest of the world. there is a parallel commitment on us to try to understand china better. it is not just about everybody learning mandarin. it is a deeper question of what means to understand the history and the culture and the norms of

the country. in that sense, the person to person contact of this era of globalization is unprecedented. if business can come on the back of the university angle, that can bring the understanding and relationships that are important. what i think is striking as an outsider to the u.s.-china conversation is that while there are fears in both countries, there is a recognition in elite circles that this relationship has to be made to work. it is about more than a singular relationship of two or 20 leaders at the top of the society. that notion of a network of relations between china and the u.s. is an important theme of this conference. we have had a great talk from each of you. we are not going to have a coffee break. thank you.

>> today on c-span, an interview with supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. >> when i was nominated for the good job that i now have, two reporters came to congratulate me. he said, i became chief in 1969. my confirmation hearing lasted exactly one hour. i said, yes chief. there is one word that describes the difference. that word is television. >> watch justice ginsburg talk about gender equality, her life experience and more from the hastings college of law in san francisco at 4:30 on c-span. >> today on "newsmakers,"

representative chris van hollen at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> secretary of state hillary clinton talked about american leadership in the global economy during a speech at the university of arkansas clinton school of public service. >> when stephanie said she wanted me to introduce hillary

clinton, i thought this is not something i should be doing. we need to take someone from the clinton school that is young and energetic and probably president clinton is the greatest legacy that we will leave this city. [applause] and then i thought about it and i thought, how do you introduce someone that you have known for 20 years who is a remarkably successful mother, citizen of the united states, former first lady of our state, former first lady of the united states, a distinguished senator and now doing a wonderful job as secretary of state? what adjectives to you use? how do you describe someone like that? in my simplistic way of looking at things, i have finally figured out that it is the

little things and little times in life that you find out about someone's character. i would like to relate a story that happened 20 years ago. being in a small state -- this was the time when you were the first lady of the state -- all of us went to christmas parties together. hillary clinton and i were talking and it was the normal dialogue. what is going on? christmas shopping, and that sort of thing. she said, what have you been doing? the country a little bit. have you ever been duck hunting? know. would you like to go? the first thing i knowed it about italy clinton was that she looked at me and with honesty she said -- the first thing i noticed about hillary clinton was that she said, you are the first person who talked about

the country and ask me if i wanted to go. no one ever asked me. this is what it is. that next monday morning, i picked up the phone and i called her. i said, do you want to go duck hunting? she said yes. i will go duck hunting. she said, what do i need to do? i said, where warm clothing. i have everything else. get a hunting license. she said, fine. [laughter] i thought, another thing comes out. a person with great gusto. willing to take a risk. doesn't know much about it, but willing to take a chance to do this. as i got older, i also understood that what she was also saying, that women could do whatever men could do, and probably better. [applause] on wednesday, i got to my office

and there was a notes 2 colorado hillary clinton. i thought, here it comes. -- note to call hillary clinton. i thought, here it comes. i cannot come. we got into a discussion about saturday or sunday. and she thought -- she said saturday. she said, a mother called me and she was to the shopping that day. can i go on sunday. i said, bill so sorry. i have other plans on sunday. -- no, i am sorry. she said, ok. i will go on sunday. -- on saturday. on saturday morning, my father who idolized her more than anybody in the world other than mine mother, showed up at the

governor's mansion. president clinton was drinking coffee. four-o'clock 30 a.m. in the morning. i said -- 4:00 in the morning. he said, i am not that dumb. we don't in the carper and it was a cold -- we jumped into the car. it was a cold day. she wears my mother's old hunting coat that is old and i had to take the top of it together -- tape the top of it together. hillary has never looked at a gun in her life. we go over some instructions on how to do this. we go out and i thought, she is

doing well. but it is cold. she never complained. he first got comes in. uncharacteristically -- the first duck comes in. uncharacteristically, we let her shoot first. she shoots one time and kills one duck with one shot. [applause] the next character trait comes out. she was a pro really surprised. she did not brand -- appropriately surprised. she was humble. she became realistic about the situation she had gotten herself into. the next thing she said was, my goodness. what am i going to do?

chelsea is going to kill me when she finds out what i have done. not to make it sound like she was perfect in everything she did. when we came in, we were going to register our ducks. even though she brought a license, she forgot to bring it. my thought process is, the trace she manifested in that week in -- traits she manifest in that week are the traits that keep bringing her forward. arkansas is lucky to have had her and still have her. we are better for its and i think she is better for having been here also -- for it and i think she is better for it also. hillary?

[applause] >> thank you. oh, my goodness. dean, that story brought back so many extraordinary memories. of that cold december day standing in the water in the waders. i will only add a few little details. [laughter] i did not think it was uncharacteristic at all when they said, go ahead, you take the first shot. [applause] [laughter] the pressure was building. it was really lucky. it was a banded duck.

i learned later, that was quite significant. we had a wonderful time because next to his wonderful wife, kula, i adored frank. i thought he was one of the most extraordinary man i have met before or since. i knew he would watch out for me a little bit with dean and dr. jones. we had a good time that day. then i got back to the governor's manchin. since i had been gone, -- man sion. since i had been gone, my daughter had gotten up. bill told her that i had gone duck hunting. chelsea let me at the back door. she said maumee, did you kill a

duck? -- mommy, did you kill a duck? i said yes. she said, mommy, that duck could have been some little duck's mother. it took a day or dojo be -- day or two before she got over that period i have had so many good experiences and times here in arkansas. i want to thank the entire k umpuris family for your generous support of this lecture series and this school. has been so welcome and we are deeply grateful. i know that frank, who was so

sick minded and public spirited, would have loved sitting in the front row next to you, kula. he would have had 100 questions for anybody sitting on this stage. i want to thank you for everything you have done for making the presidential center such a success. you have been a solid rock threw out the years. -- throughout the years. i also want to thank our longtime friends for their leadership and the entire team here at the foundation and the faculty, staff, and the students at the clinton school. there are so many familiar faces here in the audience. i am grateful for each and everyone of you. i want to mention a few. i want to mention dale and

betty. betty was such a great first lady for the state of arkansas. just the other day, she called bill and said, how should -- how much should we be worried that the cuts will affect the immunization of our children? she has been worrying about our children since i have known her. dale, i am is so pleased to see you looking as handsome and roguish as usual. david and barbara have been our

friends and our colleagues through so many years from little rock to washington and back. it is wonderful you are here. carol, thank you for the great battles you have waged on behalf of our food and nutrition and children's health throughout these years. bill is a great business leader over the years. i knew him because occasionally he would let me come teach at the first methodist church sunday school class where he would quietly but effectively critique everything i would say about the lesson of the day. there are so many others who serve in arkansas and washington administrations.

i am looking forward to having time with all of you over the next two days. before i begin, i want to say a few serious words about the events. we had a significant event in yemen earlier today. we learned of the death of anwar al-awlaki. dangerousqaeda's most affiliates. this is the terrorists to try to blow up an airplane filled with innocent people on christmas day in 2009. he attempted to bring down u.s. cargo planes in 2010. he took a leading role in those plots and in spreading an ideology of faith and violence.

today, like osama bin laden and so many other terrorist leaders who have been killed or captured in recent years, he can no longer threaten america, our allies, or peace-loving people anywhere in the world. today, we are all safer. we recognize the threat remains. al qaeda maintains the ability to plan and carry out attacks and out of the zealand's -- our vigilance is required. we will continue to ratchet up the pressure, continue pursuing a comprehensive, strategic approach to counterterrorism, and work to deny al qaeda and its affiliates safe haven in the world. it seems a long way from this absolutely glorious day here at the library after dedicating the bridge and the bill clark wetlands.

it is what i spend a lot of my time working on and doing every day. it is such a pleasure for me to be back here, to have a chance to once again see old friends and talk about what is going on in our lives, but also to remember that we are interconnected in ways large and small to people very far from where we are today. i remember the first time i flew into the little rock airport all those years ago. bill picks me up and drove me through the river valley and the arkansas mountains. just as i had been told by arkansas's biggest booster, who i first laid eyes on saying, we

grow the biggest watermelons in the world. i was taken with this beautiful states and the hospitality and welcome that i received. i want to thank little rock for the things you have done and continue to do for me and my family. i am proud of every part of this country. this year, the clinton school students are completing more than 30 international public service projects in 19 countries

on six continents. i am proud of what you are doing. i also know from my extensive travels on behalf of our country how essential is that the americans keep reaching out and that we keep opening doors and searching for better understanding. what you are doing is absolutely essential. it embodies what bill and i have always tried to keep at the center of our world. the point of public services to produce results. as bill said earlier today at the bridge dedication. it is a simple task. better off when you start then when you started. that is not the only true for elective office. it is true in the business world, the not-for-profit world,

the academic world. are the children better off? are we coming together or dividing? we have a deep freeze possibility with the clinton school that we care about. i have been looking forward to being here with you. one might think what does this mean for a secretary of state? i am aware that with what is going on in our economy and the daily struggles that so many ar kansans and americans are facing, it is hard to shift focus to something happening in yemen or afghanistan or pakistan or china or brazil. there are some who argue that the united states can no longer afford to be a global leader. that we should pull back from the world and lower our ambitions.

i am here today to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. number one, we have no choice. the world is on our doorstep whether we invite it or not. number two, we cannot afford not to be engaging. whether it is opening new markets for american businesses or breaking up terrorist plots and breathing -- bringing the wars to a close, our work around the world holds the key to our prosperity at home. there are many examples of this. some of them are controversial. take, for example, the pending free-trade agreement with south korea. it is expected to create 70,000

american jobs, including thousands right here in arkansas because tariffs on most exports are faced -- are phased out. that will make a difference in the people's lives. we have worked to renew america 's global leadership. we want to deliver more for the american people. for the last decade, our foreign policy has been focused on places where we face the greatest danger. responding to threats will always be central to our foreign policy. it cannot be our foreign policy. if all we do is focus on the threats and the dangers, we will miss the opportunities. in the decade ahead, we need to focus just as intensely on the places where we have been greatest opportunities as on those places where we have

faced the greatest dangers. what that means for me every day is looking for ways to support the arab awakening, the transition sweeping across the middle east and north africa. there are some of the most consequential and historic changes of the last decade, certainly since the fall of the soviet union. it also means renewing america's preeminent role in the asia- pacific. that is the most consequential region in the world for our future. it means elevating the world of economics and foreign policy, the most vibrant source of our power and a vital part of driving our economic recovery right here at home. it means working to empower women and girls around the world. a piece of unfinished business of humanity. it means changing the way we do foreign-policy so we are using

21st century tools and harnessing what i call smart power to produce results. we are working on all of these fronts and more. i deeply understand why so many americans today are worried about what lies ahead for them and their families and for our country. some even wonder, looking at the landscape of problems home and abroad, whether or not america is still up to the job. well, we have lived through times of anxiety before. i remember when i was growing up, the fear was that we were falling behind the soviets in technology and ambition. i remember my fifth grade teacher saying that we all needed to study mathematics so

that the russians would not get ahead of us. president eisenhower himself expected us to learn math. that made a big impression on me. i tried and cove that the president would give me some credit for effort. when i started practicing law in low rock, our country faced stagflation and looked -- stagflation. when bill was inaugurated president, it was outsourcing. the apparent decline of american competitiveness and a budget deficit at the time that seemed unbelievable. what was it? $350 billion. each time, we rose to the challenge. american entrepreneurs. innovators, approving the naysayers wrong. we out-worked, out-built, and out-competed every rival.

when it mattered most, we put the common good first. our people and generations of american leaders build a resilient economy. a global architecture of institutions and norms that protected not just our interest, but the interests of everyone that wanted a better life and a rule-based order. exceptional leadership from an exceptional country. i remember when bill and i went to east asia, when he was governor. it was the first trade mission ever to places that seemed very far away from arkansas. like japan and hong kong. the people that we met in asia did not see america in trouble. they saw a beacon of liberty and

a dynamic, market-driven, low growth. lucky for us, they also saw lots of arkansas soybeans that they wanted to buy. that view of america is right then -- was right then, and is right now. we have lived through terrorist attacks, two long boards, and a global financial crisis. through it all, america remains an exceptional country. the sources of the greatness are more durable than many realize. yes, our military is, by far, the strongest. our economy is the largest in the world. our workers are still the most productive. our universities are the gold standard. our core values of the quality, tolerance, and opportunity are an inspiration to people everywhere.

yes, we have real challenges, but there is no doubt that we have the capacity to meet them. look here, in arkansas. farmers are finding new markets for poultry, cotton, and rice. those exports are supporting tens of thousands of jobs, on the farm and off the farm. selling chemicals and plastic to note -- new customers all over the world. in 2000, arkansas exported only $20 million worth of goods to china. last year, it topped $336 million. [applause] this summer, the governor deliver the keynote address at the first ever arkansas china business and economic summit at

the university of central arkansas. students across arkansas are working to help solve problems. like in bangladesh, where they support a farmer to farmer program that uses new technology to boost food production. the state department is doing everything we can to promote american business abroad. foreign investment in arkansas already directly supports 3000 jobs, but it is just the beginning of what is possible. we are making it a priority for our ambassadors to help american businesses work with governors and mayors, like the governor b.b., two have jobs-creating investments back here doing what we do best. making things and exporting them. we are working to break down internal trade barriers that

deny our countries the chance to compete failure -- fairly. we are standing up for the intellectual property rights of america's innovators. too often under attack nearly everywhere in the world. to build up tomorrow's trading partners and build future opportunities, we are changing the way that we do international development, focusing on investment rather than aid. everything that i know shows me that we can come through these current difficulties. but nothing is preordained. no outcome is inevitable. leading the world will take the same work, clear-eyed choices, and commitment that filled this country in the first place.

ultimately, that responsibility does not rest on the shoulders of the president, secretary of state, governor, or mayor. it is really an obligation that belongs to all americans. we have to step up. we have to improve our own efforts. we have to find a common ground and the common good that has united us in the past. late last year, i held a town hall meeting in kosovo. a place where america made all of the difference to the future of those people who survived a brutal effort at ethnic cleansing. if you ever go there, there is a very large statue of bill. a way of thanking him for his leadership. next to the statue, there is a little shopping area.

someone started something called the hillary store, where they sell very nice clothing, but alas, no pants suits. [laughter] i went into this store and said -- my goodness, i am so surprised. why, on earth, would you need a hillary store? the woman who ran the store very nicely told me that they did not want bill to get lonely. [laughter] later, at the town hall meeting, a man stood up and thanked me for everything america had done for his country. like so many places in the world, he and his neighbors continued to see american leadership as a linchpin to his continued success. he asked -- can you help us so that we can see the brightest and most beautiful part of american democracy? can we be assisted in our

struggle to restore hope? just as in times past, that is what america still means to countless people are around the world. opportunity, responsibility, community. today is our chance and great privilege to live up to that weller and reputation of the past. to make a hard choices at home and abroad but keep the promise of america alive and well. yes, we have to keep putting people first. we have to keep building those bridges. and do not stop thinking about tomorrow. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> marking the anniversary of the 1992 presidential campaign, bill clinton and hillary clinton were in arkansas this weekend.

>> another young president is facing similar challenges. i will say this, he showed very good judgment in picking his secretary of state. underlying those challenges is the same old debate. about whether government is the problem, or if we need a changing economy and smart government working together to create the opportunities of tomorrow. let's watch the entire speech later today, 6:30 p.m. eastern, on c-span. flexi-van get regular updates on what is on the c-span network from twitter. you can get information on which events are live. it is easy to sign up, just hit follow when you go to twitter

and look for c-span. a simple guy of what to watch. >> and next, the retirement ceremony for admiral mike mullen. the president praised him for his leadership and his congressional testimony unbuild ask, don't tell. the president also makes remarks about the death of the al qaeda cleric, anwar el maliki. we also hear about hiring returning war veterans. this is one hour and 20 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. today's reviewing official, admiral mike mullen, 17th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. a company by the host of today's ceremony, the hon. leon panetta, secretary of defense. in general martin dempsey, incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

>> [military yelling] [band plays] the president of the united states. ["hail to the chief" plays]

ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing for the invocation. plays]

[military orders]

>> let us pray. eternal father, we praise you and thank you. it's subtle presence -- your eternal presence touches us this morning. thank you for your leadership, guidance, and direction that admiral mullen has given to this great nation. we thank you for having stood next to this great leader as he led hundreds of thousas of our most treasured puncher man and woman through two major conflicts. we ask you for a special blessing, a blessing upon admiral mullen.

such service has meant sacrifices, chief of which has been the long separations from home, family, and friends. we rejoice with him on this day. we pray that the lordill be with him. life has advance the well-being of soldiers, coastguardsman, and marines, and the loving admilies -- his wife has event vanced. as new begnings jones them into other aspects of life, maybe a short of lasting friendships and support. maybe no the many continued blessings of health, happiness, and peace. we ask this in your holy name, amen. please be seated.

[band plays]

[navy band plays]

[navy band plays]

[applause] [military orders] > >> ready, one.

[navy band plays] [mility orders] >> the united states navy band. elements of the armed forces include the presidential marching platoon, led by captain

matthew hernandez. the united states marine honor guard. sergeant robert martinez. the colors have been one of the most important elements. armed forces color guard. an element from the navy honor guard led by lt. andrew jefferson. united states air force honor guard. technical sergeant kelly mckinley. first-class petty officer michael soufra.

the old guard fife and drum corps. resistance or the reverse colors of their infantry unit. they maintain this tradion by wearing traditional red coats. major william white. 56 flags of the united states. army maj james stolk. air force major john pilon. [appuse]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the advancing of the colors and the playing of the national ahem. [military orders] >> forward. [navy band plays]

["star-spangled banner" plays]

>> please be seated. >> flag, order. flag. flag. ready. >> ready. >> ceremonial.

>> defense distinguished service medal is awarded to mike m ullen. animal mullen -- admiral mullen distinguish himself during an increasingly dynamic time in our nation's history. he advise the president, secretary of defense, and national security staff, providing strategic direction to the armed forces. he oversaw multiple sustained joint military operations disrupt terrorist networks, and

improve the security and stability in iraq. he worked to expand counterinsurgency capabilities while bolstering ties in pakistan as that region became the central effor. admiral mullen initiate a dialogue to advance support for warriors. the distinctive accomplishments, ma a long and distinguished career and reflect great credit upon himself, the united states navy, and the department of defense. [applause] he is also receiving the distinguished service medals

from the army, navy, air force, and coast guard. the department of defense not offer distinguished public service is presented to debra mullen. she met with a host of spouses at arms services installations in order to better understand and drive progress on the issues that affected the quality of life. the depth of the compassion and common sense and energy she employed on behalf of wounded and injured warriors and the families of the followed as well as female homeless veterans was indispensable. she served as an ambassador of goodwill for the united states for visits to countries across the globe. she will brew remembered for

grace andindness. her warmth and charm greatly contributed to the worldwide acclaim enjoyed by the department of defense and the united states military. her willingness to give of yoself improve the lives of others improved beyond military spouses. the distinctive accomplishments reflect great credit upon herself and the department of defense. she gave voice to those who could not speak for themselves. she gave strength to those who work flagging. no problem on their behalf was too big to handle. she will be missed by all those lives that she touched and souls that she comforted. [applause]

>> flag. [military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the posting of the colors. >> honor guard.

[band plays]

[military orders] [military orders] [band plays] >> flag. [military orders] >> please be seated. >> flag, ready. >> ready. [military orders] >> ceremonial.

>> ceremonial. [military orders] >> ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of defense. [applaus >> mr. president, mr. vice presidents, the sting which guests, ladies and gentlemen. it is indeed a privilege for me to be able to honor two very special persons and two very special human beings. thank you all for being here, help pay tribute to imal mike mull for is more than four

decades of service to our nation and to help recognize general martin dempsey for once again entered the country's call as he takes on the new leadership role as chairman. but first of all, none of us in public service could do these bs without the love and support of our families. i want to extend my deepest than to the imal mullen's family, his wife deborah -- to admiral mullen's family, his wife deborah. now serving with the fleet. i want to recognize general than see's family -- general dempsey

's family. they also follow it into their fathers' footsteps and became soldiers. it is truly inspiring to see the same commitment to serve this nation, passing to a new generation of leaders who will follow in the footsteps of their fathers. the route my long career in public service -- the route my long career, i've had the stinct honor to serve with a vast array of immensely talented people and impressive leaders. but for me, admiral mullen will always stand apart in a special place. his leadership, his influence, his honest candor, his straight

talk, his compassion and his outspoken concern for our troops and for their families have set him apart and he has set exceptionally high standard for the role of chairman of the joint chiefs. he has defined the role of the 21st century chairman of the jointhiefs. part warrior, part diplomats, , spokesman,r spoke, leader. it's career is exampled dogged persistence and hard work.

-- his career is an example of dogged persistence and hard work. [applause] >> i think most of them are here. most >> of them will not have predicted that mike would have lasted five years in the navy alone rise to the pinnacle of his military profession. in the fleet and seeing combat in vietnam, mike was taken by the navy and the navy was taken by mike. thanks in part to great people who saw his deep inner strength and his leadership qualities. he flourished, rising to command, u.s. double forces in

europe, sir ring as the 20th chief of naval operations. mike came the job of chairman and a critical time for our military and for our country. we faced hard fighting and heavy casualties in iraq as the surge troops battled it determined insurgency. afghanistan was slipping away as the taliban expanded its presence throughout the country. our military forces, particularly the ground troops, were under tremendous strain deployment after deployment after deployment. he was determined to preserve the help of our all-volunteer force, even in the face of the

unrelenting demands from these wars. he saw what the repeated to performance or doingo america's finest, our young men and women, exhausted. wounded warriors returning home bearing the scars of war. and those bearing and seemed scars forever changed by the horrors ey witnessed. mike saw before many others that the war in afghanistan needed more attention, more resources, and a new approach. we all agreed deal to his vision, his determination, his dedication, and his tiress work as a military diplomat to route theegion. i'm personally honored by the fact that the operation that took down bin laden could not have been done without mike's

support and without his cooperation. he also made extraordinary progress on asian-pacific matters. he worked to prevent a dangerous escalation in the conflict of the peninsula of the korean peninsula. helped our allied forge closer ties. the repeal of don't ask don't tell. at the moment in time when few thought it was possible, in his courageous testimony and leadership on this issue were major factors in bringing about this important change. his courage and his honesty achieved what was -- what will be forever known as a milestone in the history of equal rights for all. mike tells it like it is an

frankly, that is a rare quality in this town. at a dinner this week, i was reminded by mike his father was a hollywood publicist. as i thought about it, i stated at mike in many ways represented the culmination of all of the qualities from the wizard of oz. great brain, a greateart, and great courage. sometimes a little wizardry behind the curtain to get things done. it's time to say a few words about his dorothy, the more kabul woman who was beeby his side since his first day in 1967 and an army-navy game, his wife deborah. both of them came from show

business family is. her mother was a dancer from australia. i know the love of the theater continues today and hopefully they will now have some time to enjoy that. deborah has been a steadfast and tireless advocate for more and better resources to care for our wounded warriors and their families. she's been at the forefront of issues confronting military families, spousal employment, homelessness, survivors' benefits, education, posttraumatic stress, and no one has done more to bring to light the special challenges being faced by military children, whom she would have often noted labor under a special kind of fear. as only a military spouse could do, she was a powerful voice for

our families. deborah, you are a national treasure and the country owes you a profound debt of gratitude. [applause] the good thing is that today we will move from one extraordinarily decent human being to another in throle of chairman. up from the roots of an irish family from bayonne, new jersey, marty truly, from the grassroots. he knows about people. he knows about hard work. he knows about sacrifice. having worked with him over these pastew months, i can say that the president made a truly inspired choice in picking him to serves the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he brings a keen intellect,

proven leadership, sategic visi, and humanity to the crital post. and he tells it like it is as well, only with an irish smile. his strategic this is the right one for this te of transition, as we craft a joint force that can defeat the wide range of security threats that we face in the world today and in the future. at this time of budget constraints, he will be a great partner in maintaining the best defense force in the world. i know that both the president and i look really benefit from your advice and counsel. am delighted that your wife is joining our team. she is the real -- she is a real friend to military families and

i know that you will continue to champion the cause of military families. as the new secretary of defense, i am supremely confident of the future. we have the strongest military force our history and in the history of the world. and it is strong, exactly because we can replace one great warrior with another. the men and women in uniform are the greatest asset we have. they are our greatest strength. we celebrate the strength today by honoring these two grt leaders. is my privilege to introduce another great leader who cares greatly about our men and women in uniform. ladies and gentlemen, our commander in chief, president of the united states, and barack obama.

[applause] thank you very much. secretary panetta, thank you for your introduction and for your extraordinary leadership. members of congress, by president biden, -- vice- president biden, stingless guests -- sting was aghast -- distinguished guests. want to acknowledge your son jack who is deployed today. of you have performed extraordinary service to our country. want to say a few words about some important news.

earlier this morning, anwar al- awlaki, was killed in yemen. [applause] the death --the death is a major blow to al qaeda'most- actives operational of cilia. he was the leader of the external operations for al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent americans. he directed aailed attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. he directed a failed attempt to block u.scargo planes in 2010. he repeatedly called on individuals to kill innocent men, women, and children to advance the murders agenda. the death of anwar al-awlaki

marks another significant milestone to defeat al qaeda and its affiliates. the success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of yemen and its security forces who have worked closely with the united states over the course of several years. his organization has been responsible for the deaths of many yemenis citizens. this has been rejected by the vast majority of muslims and people oall faiths. the governor and people of yemen have joined in a common effort against al qaeda. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula remains a dangerous terrorist organization. we will remain vigilant against any threat to the united states or our allies and partners.

is is further proof that al qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world. working with yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be delivered and we will be relentless and resolute in our commitment to destroy it terrorist networks that aim to kill americans. we will build a world in which people can live in greater peace, prosperity, and security. advancing that security has been of the man wek honor today. he got out to a somewhathaky start. he was a young ensign commandina small tanker, 23 years old, when the collided with a bulloy. you're on a ship, audit with

anything is not a good thing -- colliding with anything is not a good thing. i tell the story because mike still did himself. he has always understood that the true measure of our success is not whether we stumble. is whether we pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and got the job. whether the matter the storm that, are as a, we chart our course and keep our eyes fixed on the horizon and take care of those around us, because we all rise and fall together. that is the story of mike mullen. that's the story of america and the spirit that we celebrate today. if there is a threat to register his olestra's career, it is his sense of stewardship. the understanding that as

leaders, our time at the helm is but a moment in the life of our nation. the humility which says the institution and people entrusted to our care look to us, yet they did not belong to us. the sense of responsibility we have to pass them safer and stronger to those who follow. as you look back to your four years as chairman and your four decades in uniform, be assured -- our military is stronger and our nation is more secure because of the service that you have rendered. [applause] today we have renewed american leadership in the world. we have strengthened our alliances including nato. we all leading again in asia and we forged a new treaty russia.

every american can be grateful to admiral mullen, as am i, is critical role in these achievements. today we see the remarkable achievements of our 9/11 generation of service members. they have gen arakis a chance to determine their own future. they pushe the taliban and other afghan strongholds and put al qaeda on the path to defeat. well, our forces have responded to sudden crisis with compassion as in haiti and with precision as in libya. there will be long remembered that our troops that these tasks on animal mullen -- admiral mullen's leadership.

our soldiers, afford to sure deployments, wartime with their families, and more time training for future missions. despite the stresses and strains of a hard decade of war, the military that admiral mullen passes on is the best that it has ever been. today, our military draws its strength from more members of our of american families. soon all women will report to duty on our submarines. truck service members who are gay and lesbn no longer have to lieo serve the country that they love. tipping point towards is progress came when the 17th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when before congress and told the nation that it was the right thing to do. your legacy will indoor in a military that is stronger but

also in a nation that is more just. f [applause] finally, invery discussion i've ever had with mike, one thing has always been foremost in his mind -- the lives of our men and women in uniform. i have seen it in the quiet moments with our wooded warriors. sought that day in the situation room as we held our breath for the safe return of our forces who delivered stice to osama bin laden. i saw it at dover as we honored our fallen heroes in the final journey home. you have to fill out the pledge you made at the beginning, to represent our troops with unwavering dedication. and so was deborah.

thank you for four decades of service -- we thank her for kindness, her jealous, her grace under pressure. she is an extraordinary woman, mike. both lucky to have married up. [applause] now the mantle of leadership passes to marty dempsey. i thank you for answering the call to serve once more. in this sense, today begins to complete the transition to our leadership team. in secretary panetta, we have one of our nation's finest public servants. in deputy carter, we have

someone to replace bill ly nn. the chairmen and vice chairman will have the experience of leading combat operations in the year since 9/11. leon, marty, ash, sandy, men and women of this department, we still have much to do in bringing home the rest of our troops and transitioning to the afghan lead for their own security and the al qaeda to our most solemn of obligations, taking care of our forces and their families when they go to war and when they come home. none of this will be easy, especially as our nation makes hard choices. as commander in chief, let me say as clearly as i can.

as we go forward, we will be guided by the mission we ask about our troops and the capabilities they need to succeed. we will maintain our military superiority. we will never waiver in defense of our country, our citizens, or our national security interests. the united states of america will remain the greatest force for freedom and security the world has ever known. it is who we are as americans. this is who we will always be as weak sleuth mike mullen as an exemplary -- as we salute mike mullen as an exemplary of service. we will keep the country we love safe and view the sources of american strength here at home and around the world. mike, thank you from a grateful

nation. [applause] [military calls] >> ladies and gentlemen, admiral mullen. [applause] >> thank you.

mr. president, mr. vice president, secretary panetta, general dempsey, distinguished guests, including some of my counterparts from around the world that i have worked so hard with, many of whom have become great friends. general richard from the u.k.. family and friends, men and women, and families of the united states armed forces. thank you and good morning. deborah and i are humbled by your presence and delighted by the chance to share this special day with you. for us, it does not cap off a four year stint on the joint

staff. anyone will tell you, is about four years and two must too long. caps our years together in the united states navy. i walked through gate 1 in the summer of 1964. i took a young, pretty california girl to an army-navy game in 1967. famously struggle to graduate one year later. i ask that girl to marry me. she actually had a few objections. after hearing them, i thought, maybe i would not marry me either. [laughter] once again, i had some luck and she did. deborah, and possible would be to convey to you the deapth of my love and the full measure of my admiration.

you complete me in ways i have only recently come to understand. it i am weiser, it is for your counsel. if i am gentler, -- wiser, it is for your counsel. if i am is stronger, is for your courage. the father of a navy seal killed last august wrote to me of your tenderness and kindness when you agreed with him at dover air force baseair-- grieved with him at dover air force base. i do believe, he wrote, she is perhaps an angel. you have always been an angel on my shoulder. i love you more than you can know. [applause] live at gentleman, i am a proud navy father corrine i am a proud navy grandfather. proud may be

grandfathered. . no father could be more proud. i love you boys. thanks for being there for me and your mother during the long separation and keeping me, if at leasttly sane, a well grounded. you have grown into the best of man and the finest of naval officers. i. look forward to watching your careers unfolds. as for my career, i know that my mother would be proud. my father would have been thrilled. if you ask any of my classmates down there from the class of '68 -- 1968, they would tell you they are amazed by my success. [applause]

frankly, i do not blame them. i am whoa maze. i have woken up and thought, that is a the issue. i should call the chairman. but that is me. i could thank others who have had an enormous influence on me and deborah. people who made possible every success we have known and made lighter and the hardships we have weather. i will not do that. it is not because i am and losing my memory. that football game might to debra -- deborah to in 1967, navy 19, army 14. sorry, marty. any attempt at a proper show of gratitude will result in marks

-- remarks to brief to recognize their contribution to our allies and to long for the audience to endure. those closest to us know who they are and what they have done for us. they know we love them and we are indebted to them. to all of you from both of us, thank you. to those of you who are not the closest to us, maybe you should have stepped in up a notch. it does not hurt to have friends with access to drones. [laughter] i have been asked by many people, even some reporters, with vice i would give general dempsey, what pearls of wisdom would rally for him as he prepares to step into this job? -- pearls of wisdom i would leave for him as he prepares to step into this job? i have always taken that irresponsibility seriously.

always considered a low profile best. sort of like my hero, george marshall. i said it to letterman on his show. it is on my facebook page if you want to see it. [laughter] the position of the chairman of the joint chiefs is difficult to understand and a little confusing. when i tweet, people tweet back and say, who are you anyway. a woman at a dinner party ask me what i did in the manner -- in the military. i told her i was the joint chiefs's chairman. oh, she said. i guess i thought with all of those metals and stars you were somebody important. -- medals, you were somebody

important. i am, i stress. i am the president's top military adviser. clearly, she was embarrassed. oh my goodness, general petraeus, i am so sorry. [laughter] i just did not recognize you. dave is here today now as the director of the cia. thanks, dave. i owe you one. i told marty that he is not just the president's adviser, he is the personal adviser of the women who make up the armed forces and their families. i told him he had a bully pulpit in this job and he should use it to address their needs, concerns, accomplishments. they will not ask him for that help, but they will need it. they will not ask him for

anything more than his leadership. sometimes, he will believe that he has fallen far short. i told him he would never be more proud than when he stood amongst the ranks of troops from other services and saw that they shared the same professionalism, the same pride and determination to win that i, as a sailor, saw in his soldiers. i told him he would love going to sea in one of our ships and he should seek out the earliest opportunity to do so. he should not wear and tear patch for seasickness. they work ok. they just do not look good. i told him his fellow chiefs of defense from nation's big and small are the only of the people in the world who have any idea what sort of pressure he is under. he will find them sources of immeasurable wisdom, clarity, support. same goes for the chief and our combat commanders, who are the

best team of leaders with whom i have ever served. we are truly a joint force because of them and their selflessness. i told him the president will listen to him because that is the present's way. he seeks counsel. he appreciates candor, except for certain delicate matters concerning the chicago white sox. he really likes it when you laugh at his jokes. it makes the meeting go better. [laughter] i have had every opportunity to offer my views to the pot -- to be president. all of my advice has been heard. a military man or woman can ask for nothing more from their military leaders. they should expect nothing less. president obama made it clear from the beginning that he valued military council in protecting the military was his

top priority. he has made good on his promises. bin laden is dead. awlaki is dead. al qaeda is a much less dangerous network. our kids have no stronger advocates for their well-being than he and the first lady, the vice president, and dr. biden. they have devoted an extraordinary amount of their time and personal energy to make sure our men and women have the support they need. both in the fight and here at home, i consider myself privileged to have served them all. i appreciate their confidence in me. speaking of the fights we are in, i told marty his biggest challenge will be afghanistan in making sure the security gains we have made are not squandered by corruption and the lack of

good governance that still plagues the country. our strategy is the right one. we must keep executing it. i reminded him of the importance of pakistan in all of this. i continue to believe there is no solution in the region without pakistan and no stable future in the region without a partnership. not surprisingly, i told him the budget battles will dominate his days, that he could not have a more accomplished partner than secretary panetta. mr. secretary, our time together has been short in days, but long on substance. i consider myself fortunate to have had this opportunity to serve you and to learn from you as i did under secretary gates, another extraordinary man i consider a good friend and mentor. thank you for your leadership and the trust you place in me.

it is exceedingly clear to me that you care about our men and women in middle form -- in uniform and you will make sure they and their families remain foremost in mind as we grapple the difficult decisions ahead. first among those decisions is what kind of military the american people deserve over the next 20 or 30 years. when i look at the effects of a decadent war and what affect it has had on our people -- effect it has had on our people and ponder the impact china has had on the field, we can ill afford to use -- to lose our age. we have become the best counterinsurgency force in the world. we have become the most

expeditionary force in our history. in the process, we have sacrificed some of the leadership and continuity that preserve the health of a volunteer force. cut to deeply, and we will burn the blanket of protection we have been charged to provide our fellow citizens. cut too deeply now and we will harm the industrial base from which we procure the materials of war. finally, i told marty to consider this job a marathon and not a sprint. time is his friend and his enemy. marty, you are going to be great. you are absolutely the right person for this job. you are a combat-proven leader who cares about all of us. with your wife at your side, the

two of you are the right team for this time. deborah and i wish you the best. i would like to extend personal wishes from double-a-2 our military families. to words that --ar deborah our military families. "nothing born from ease and comfort is nothing from ease that military families exude every day." . thank you for your quite a sacrifice and for empowering me to represent your concerns. it has been the greatest privilege. i will miss the life and i will miss all of you. deborah. for my part, i have only one

last thing to say to my fellow citizens. the men and women of your forces are the best we have ever known. they believe in what we are doing. all i ask that you continue to believe in them. reach out to them and their families. what over them in this sea of good will that i know exists in this country. war has changed them and their loved ones forever. he has not change their dreams. you can help make those dreams come true. help them buy a home. get them started on a path to education. give them a chance. that is all they want. america is struggling.

what makes this country so special is not our accomplishments is how we bounce back from adversity the way we soldier threw disappointed and triumph. these are the hallmarks of a great people. we talk about the resilience of our troops and our families as if it is something apart from the rest of society. it is not and it should not be. where do you think those troops learn to be so brave. in your home, in your school, in your communities. welcome them back to the pace is -- the places with not only yellow ribbons, but with the recognition that they have done your bidding and represented you well. they have carried the best of you and of this country into battle. they have done things and seeing things and better things in

there so that you cannot know. help them through their trials. be tolerant of them and each other. together we will prove the greatness that is america. god bless you all. god bless our great country. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, at this time, general dempsey will be sworn in as the 18th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. >> i, state your name, having been appointed by the president of the united states of the joint chiefs of staff, do solemnly swear, to support and defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic,

and their true faith and allegiance to the same. i take this obligation freely without any reservation or purpose of evasion, and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which i am about to enter, so help me, god. [applause]

>> ceremonial! [military calls] >> ladies and gentlemen, the 18th chief -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. >> the groom's side. that is what i was afraid of. president obama, secretary

panetta, thank you for your vote of confidence and for allowing me the honor and privilege of continuing to serve this nation in uniform. vice president joe biden, thank you for your support over the years. my thanks to all of you for your love and support, my 5 and soon to be seven grandchildren are a particular joy in our lives. my wife continues to some -- inspire us all. she put a phrase on my refrigerator. life is what happens when you are making other plans.

my brothers of the west point class of 1974 are here again. i hope this is our last gathering for a while. they are here to confirm the fact that miracles do happen. i want you to know that i will be proud to tell people that i rode with mike mullen during

some of the most challenging times in our nation's history. thanks for everything. you heard me one moment ago our nation ando to the ideals that he finds its -- define it. those ideals are a sacred trust that exists between the military and the people of the united states. i will live up to that oath and maintain that trust. as i began my tenure as chairman of the joint chiefs, the armed forces of the united states are powerful, responsive, resilience, versatile, and admired. we provide our nation's leaders with a wide range of options to cover the crises we face. we are an unambiguous signal of our nation's resolved. our people, america's sons and

daughters, are our decisive edge. we will change and we will be challenged. when i complete my tenure, i intend to be able to say exactly the same thing. we will bring-- be the joint force the nation needs us to be, so help me, god. thank you. [applause] [military calls]

♪

>> today on "newsmakers," chris van hollen on efforts to identify $1.20 trillion in budget cuts. that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. former president bill clinton and secretary of state hillary clinton were in arkansas this weekend to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1992 presidential campaign. >> now another young president is facing similar challenges. i will say this, i suppose i am pulling harder for him because he shows such good judgment in picking the secretary of state. i would be pulling for him regardless because underlying

those challenges is the same old debate. about whether government is the problem or whether we need smart government and a changing the economy working together to create the opportunities of tomorrow. >> watch his entire speech today at 6:30 p.m. today on c-span. >> next, remarks from supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. she talks about abortion, gender equality, and the role of justices in the political system. she is joined by joan williams, the founding director for work, life, law. this is one hour and 30 minutes. host: ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> i am honor to present to you joan williams, who has been called a rock star for her terrific work reinventing the law of the workplace. she has been a major voice of issues on women in law firms. she started the project for attorney retention, which came up with the modern policies that have allowed working women to make partner at major law firms

even after they need to lower their hours. she was given the aba's margaret brent award. beyond that, a center that demonstrates the best of what legal scholarship is all about, taking big ideas and applying them in the real world, she developed techniques that protect each and everyone of us. now it is improper to discriminate against employees on the basis of their having family care giving responsibilities. single- joan's work handedly. she came up with this idea in 2000. the eeoc adopted in 2007.

she will be speaking with ruth bader ginsburg . she was appointed in 1980 by president jimmy carter to the united states court of appeals. she was elevated to the supreme court in 1993 by president bill clinton. please join me in welcoming joan williams and justice ruth bader ginsburg. >> i want to start by welcoming you, justice ginsburg. we were talking before this and we realize she was on the same law faculty as my father.

i want to thank you so much for coming out here. >> i had a unique invitation from hastings law school. someone said, here is the program for the san francisco opera in september. pick any one and mary will invite you as her guests. we saw a remarkable production of turendot.

i highly recommend it. >> i gather you got to the opera considering the that you were late. >> your mother's key message was to be a lady and be independent. for many women, they would not have seen it as a problem if the wife was supported by her husband. did she think differently. >> if a woman works, it was a

sign his -- her husband could not make it. i think my father realized that my mother would have had a fuller life had she been gainfully employed. >> she was sending you the message that it was important for a woman to be independent. she sounds like a bit of a free thinker for her generation. >> she hoped i would meet prince charming. >> which you did. >> we were married happily ever after for 56 years. she also thought it was important for a woman to be self standing and to be able to support herself and her family if need be. >> another influence on you was

okov.elist, naba most people do not think of artists and lawyers in the same breath. you are attracted to art. >> nabokov was a european literature professor. he changed the way i read and the way -- and influence the way i write. he was a man who loved the sound of words. i can give you one example. it was a quiz we had on a dicken novel. the question was, when we first meet the character, where is she?

the professor announced, most of you remember that her head was sticking through a grave. only seat 59 wrote that we see the large head sticking through a grate . that gives you the idea of the misery of this child. the first page gives the picture of this life on this firm. i think english was his third language. his first was french, then russian, then english. he spoke about what he'd like in the english language -- what he liked in the english language.

in english, use a white horse. when you get to the horse, is already white. you see brown horse and you have to convert it. [laughter] >> you are known for keeping its rights and keeping it tight. did that come from him-- right and keeping it tight. did that come from him? >> it came from being a law teacher and being a lawyer. judicial opinions are much longer than they need to be. >> i also want to ask you about your husband, who you said was the toast -- first way you ever met that cared you had a brain. he was unusual for his

generation in his support for your career. i wonder how you balance work and family day today. when you took off to study swedish civil procedure, your daughter was five or six. how did she put it altogether? >> marty and i married the same month i graduated from cornell. i had never lived alone. i worried about little things like who had to chip at a restaurant. could i do those things for myself -- tip at a restaurant. could i do those things for myself? marty was supportive of my decision and kept jane. she was in kindergarten. when her school finished, she came to join me. i got it out of my system and was confident i could manage myself.

one of my dear college friends noticed something about marty when we met. i was 17 and he was 18. marty was so confident of his own ability, so comfortable with himself, he never regarded me as any kind of a threat. on the contrary, he always made me believe i could do more than i thought i could. >> the law class wanted to know what advice you have in finding a partner who is really a partner. i think you just gave it to them. >> the other thing about marty was that he was a great cook. [laughter] he said he attributed his skill in the kitchen to two people. the first was his mother and then his wife. i think that was unfair with

respect to my mother-in-law. it was an accurate depiction of me. when we started out, i was the everyday cut and he was the weekend and company cook. -- cook and he was the weekend and company cook. i had seven things i could make. when we got to number seven, we went back to number one. nothing took longer than one hour to go from the kitchen to the table. we spent the first two years of our marriage in oklahoma. marty was an artillery officer. when jane was born, i went back to his folks and she was born in

long island. monday was given a book and it said, this will give you something to do while your wife is a way. he took this cookbook and he treated it like a chemistry test. he started with basic sauce. we were a part for two years. he was quite accomplished by the time we left. >> so cooking is chemistry. >> the best part of the story for me is jane, around her high school years, she was 15 or 16, notes is a distinct difference between mommy's cooking and daddy's cooking. she decided i should be phased

out of the kitchen. [laughter] we moved to washington, d.c. in 1980. i have not cooked a meal from the day we made our move. that is true even today. my husband died one year ago june. my daughter comes once a month to cook for me. she fills up the freezer. sometimes she makes too much that i have to -- so much that i have to take the overload to the court freezer. >> having read so much about you and knowing you did not like to cook, i was worried who was cooking for you. another question related to your late husband from my class. when you got appointed to the d.c. circuit, he gave up his job

in new york. was he faculty? >> he was counsel, but he was a professor at columbia law school. >> he gave it up and followed you to washington. >> he transferred to georgetown. >> what would you say to young men about why they should accept a situation where their career sometimes come seconds? >> in a family, there is a balance. we started out in oklahoma and we were students for the next three years. it was natural to share everything. when marty was starting out in law practice and eager to make partner, i was responsible for

the lion's share of taking care of jane and the home. that balance changed when the women's movement came along and marty appreciated the importance of the work i was doing. then i became the person who's career came first. -- whose career came first. when i was appointed to the d.c. circuit, people came up to me and said, it must be hard commuting back and forth to new york. they could not imagine a man would leave his work to follow his wife. even then, we would go to parties and we would be introduced. i would be introduced as judge

ginsburg. a head would spin to marty. [laughter] that did not happen when i was appointed to the supreme court. [applause] >> see, young ladies. we have a solution to that problem. >> marty was a member of the club.s thatcher - a qualification for being a member is, your wife has a job, but in your hearts, you would like to have her job. [laughter] >> i wanted to talk about a

supreme court case, which is the christian legal society versus martinez. it is a first amendment case. it says that hastings could insist that all student groups could accept all comers and be open to all who wanted to join them. we find that students are satisfied with the supreme court opinion, which you will be surprised -- be pleased to hear. they wonder that if every school group is required to accept everyone, how can an individual group can distinguish itself or its influence. the have any thoughts? >> the history of that organization answers the question. for years, the christian legal society accepted all comers. when they became an affiliate of the national, the national said, you can accept only true believers.

people who had been part of the club when it was open to all comers talked about the experience of having people who are not the same, particularly having gay members and how it affected them. it was pretty clear that the quality policy worked and it did not destroy -- equality policy worked and it did not destroy the mission of the organization. made them more understanding of others who were different. >> i want to shift to an establishment clause case, a case that prohibits the establishment of religion. it's pretty big state from

buying books for religious -- prohibits states from buying books for religious schools. there was a state law that gave a tax credit for up to $500 for contributions to student tuition organizations. that money is used to buy scholarships to pay for students to go to private schools, often religious schools. a taxpayer suit saying this violated the establishment clause. the supreme court of missouri said the taxpayer had no standing to sue, distinguishing and overruling past cases. as i think about arizona and christian s.t.o., it makes me wonder what is left of the establishment clause. all an organization needs to do is have a different tax expenditure rather than paying a

direct subsidy. why is the establishment clause so important. how is that case affected in your view? >> there are two distinct issues. only one was involved in that case. that is, who can complain about a violation of the establishment clause. the president- -incase -- precedent-establishing case said no one is more valuable to the -- then the next person in taxpaying. unless we allow taxpayers standing, these actions by the government are in violation of the clause and they will go on challenge. -- go unchallenged.

the arizona case said taxpayers cannot sue. it distinguish it so that unless you have bd the cla, you would be unable to challenge any action of government as a violation of the establishment clause if you are merely a citizen taxpayer. what is the content of the establishment clause? has changed. it was once thought that there was a wall of separation between church and state. there is a different notion that

the current majority of the court has. .here is no war of separation/ in the tuition case, if you are going to give money for scholarships to catholic schools, you must give money to jewish schools equally. the notion is that the prohibition is on favoring one religion over another. that is the current debate. what does the establishment clause mean? does it mean stay out of church affairs? does it mean the state can give money to religion and support religion as long as you do so

without preferring one religion over others? >> that is a dramatic shift from understanding the establishment clause when i was in law school. >> the two strains were there from the beginning. >> you have always loved procedure, which is a mystery to me. >> the greatest law school teacher i had was benjamin kaplan. the first class i had in law school was simple procedure. who washad a class mate on a fellowship to harvard. he was a journalist and was

taking courses in the law school and college. on the first day, he performed brilliantly in class. i went home and said, if they are all like that, i would not make it in this class. he said, you are at least as smart as he is. i said, i want to try to volunteer as much as that fellow. i do not know if i would have loved the subject so much if i did not have a really extraordinary teacher. >> it is tied up for you with access to justice. is that right? >> you can have all the rights in the world. but if you cannot enforce them, they are not worth much. >> there was a supreme court case last term that was well

known in which you dissented. it had to do with whether an american who had been injured by a machine manufactured abroad could sue in the united states. do you want to talk about that a little? >> the micastro case. this was a man who worked in a metal shop in new jersey. the employer had purchased a shearing machine that was defective and was responsible for the accident. the manufacturer had engaged an exclusive distributor in the the united states. the manufacturer's i object was to sell as many machines in place in the united states. the manufacturer showed its wares every year at the trade fair of the metalwork

organizations. the court held that there were not sufficient ties to the state of new jersey. to allow for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the power of the manufacturer. we are a nation in a world that does not know from states. they know from the united states. this manufacturer could not care if it was new jersey or arizona or texas. it just wanted to sell machines in the united states. the question should be, are there sufficient contact with the united states. is this manufacturer sufficiently affiliated with the united states to authorize this here?

the place of entry was a logical. but that is where the action happened and that is where the witnesses were. it was a 5-4 decision. it said there's not a single manufacturer in the united states then could escape liability to someone injured in the united states from the use of that product. they can exploit a market in the united states but they escape liability for the injury of their products. most important for foreign

manufacturers are personal injury awards which are vastly higher than awards elsewhere. the is very difficult to understand -- the majority is difficult to understand what an entrepreneur who sees the u.s. as a market in the new have to pinpoint a specific the state. to avoid doing that, there will be no personal jurisdiction. >> i thought i understood why justice ginsberg cared about the procedure. it was in my view, a very sobering case. i want to talk about the cases that i teach and i have spent my life studying. these are key cases that began

in the 1970's with you litigating them. i'm quoting you, "the supreme court had never met something it did not like." the 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection of the law, when seen as applied to race but not gender had been interpretation for over 104 years. what made you think that you could get the court to overrule over one century of precedence? >> the court is a reactive institution. is never in the forefront for social change. there's always a movement in society pushing that way. when you think of brown vs. the board of education, it is not

only that thurgood marshall was a brilliant lawyer and had major building blocks, but it was the tenor of the times. we had just fought a war, world war ii, against an odious form of racism, yet our troops, for most of the war, were separated. apartheid in america really had to go. racism, of the kind we had in the united states, was totally against what we were fighting for. the time was right for that in recognition. similarly, by 1970, the women's movement was revived. it was not just in the united states but all over the world.

some places ahead of us and behind, but there were international rules here. there was that issue that people cared about, and as a great legal scholar once said, it should never react to the weather of the day, but inevitably it will react to the climate of the era of the change. the very first brief that i helped write, we put on the cover of the brief, "we've come as the aclu, representing two women." because those women were saying

the same things that we were saying but they said it at a time when no one was prepared to listen, or very few people. think of the 1960's, the liberal warren court, in the case against florida. that is what we would call a battered woman abused by her philandering husband. one day, he had humiliated her to the point where she spied a baseball bat belonging to her young son in the corner of the room. she took it and hit him over the head. she fell and it was the end of her argument, but the end of his life, and the beginning of a murder prosecution in

hillsboro, county, florida. florida did not put women on juries unless they came in and volunteered for service. men would volunteer if they could escape service. her thought was if there were women on the injury was that they would better understand her state of mind, not that they would acquit her, but she thought she might be convicted of the lesser crime of manslaughter rather than murder. she was convicted of murder by an all male jury. she had raised the question of the absence of women from the jury rules in florida all the way through the lower courts. the supreme court heard the case, and the attitude in 1961

was -- [fire engine sirens] if they do not want to serve, they do not have to. the notion of a citizen who escapes the basic obligation that you have to participate in the administration of justice, and does not mean you do not consider that person a full citizen. the supreme court did not react as it should have. 10 years later, they're right a unanimous decision in the sally reed case saying that a provision of the idaho probate code that said, between persons

equally entitled among males must be preferred to emails. -- to females. the court held unconstitutional. sally reed was an ideal representative of what women were complaining about. her case arose in tragic circumstances. she and her husband were childless and adopted a boy. they then separated, and sally was awarded custody when the boy was of tender years and "needed a mother's care." when he reached the teen years, the father said he wanted to take care of him and needed be prepared for a man's world.

she thought the father would not be a good influence on her son and was quite right. the boy was terribly depressed and one day he took out one of his many guns and he killed themselves. she wanted to be appointed administrator of his estate, not that it had value, but for sentimental reasons. she is faced with this provision and said that it was not fair. i applied first, so i should get the appointment. sally reed was not a sophisticated woman. she made her living by taking care of elderly people in her home and she would not have called herself a feminist. she probably did not even know the word.

she thought that she had suffered an injustice and she had faith in the legal system that she could write that wrong. people like that committees were real, everyday people. people thought they could do something to redress their grievances. i was very lucky to be there at the right time and in the right place. a law professor with a flexible schedule. to be thevery lucky right person, right place, right time, yet you were also brilliant at doing something i think a lot about it. when you're trying to use all legal change to tool social changer in response to social change, how do orchestrate the

press, the executive, all to make it all happen? >> we started the aclu women's rights project and we had three missions. the first was public education. people have to care. the second was to get the legislature to change. that rate was one reason why i was a big advocate of the equal rights amendment. that would prompt them to clean up the logo. and then, finally the courts. we worked on all three lost and on a legislative change, we got a great gift from the dean of the law school at first

attended when he was solicitor general. it came about in a tax case, the only case where my husband and i were ever co-counsel. it involved a tax deduction for the care of a young child or a dependent, a disabled dependent of any age. the deduction was available to any woman, widowed or divorced man. the plaintiff in that case was charles moritz, a man who never married but to took great care of his mother, though he was -- she was 93 at the time.

he could not get the deduction. he represented himself in the tax court and his brief was the sole simplicity. "if i had been a dutiful daughter, i would have gotten this deduction for the care of my mother. i made dutiful son and i do not get the break. that makes no sense." that was the more its case. -- mortiz case. it was the model for the brief in my eyes. we have two cases of stereotyped. sally reed was assumed to be less competent to the minister of state and charles moritz who is considered less competent to care for an elderly parent.

if we could get those to the before the court, they would see the irrationality of the over broad classifications by gender. now i have strayed from the question. >> not at all. i wanted to talk about your earlier cases. those cases are now commonly referred to as formal equality cases. one thing i wanted to ask you, just for the record, would you go only formal? >> one has to begin at the beginning. for a statute books come of their widows with classifications based on sex. what we wanted was to open all the wars, for men and four women -- opened all doors.

no one should be blocked of an opportunity or a particular course in life because they were male or female. the idea was to get rid of all of the overt gender bases classifications. that was the starting point, to have lawbooks that did not classify people or make one classifications on the basis of the mother, father, son, daughter. [fire engine sirens] what we encountered in approaching courts was something that was absent in the movement for racial justice.

many people thought that gender discrimination was it my mind in a woman's favorite that when there were told they could not do something, like working at night, not working overtime because their hours were limited until 8:00 p.m. all of those protections sheltered women, and it was hard for them to see that those so- called "protections" really operated as they said in that case to not put a woman in a pedestal but in a cage. >> the way as see those cases is really focusing not so much under formally qualities but

focusing on a gender system which continues to be the gender system we have to this day which is what they call the separate spheres. that is the system that associates men that work with women and families and it has rare particular descriptions of men and women that women are focused on care and cooperation and men are focused on work and competition. as i look back on those cases, it seems to me that a central theme was to change that system and one of the reasons that you felt so comfortable choosing mails as plaintiffs was that an equally effective way to the contract system is to change the rules for men as to change the rules for women. i wonder what you think about. >> i think that is exactly right.

as i have said quite often that if i were to invent an affirmative-action plan, it would be to give men every incentive to be close to children. i would give them as kindergarten teachers, grade school teachers, and we would have a healthier world, i think, if men shared women's responsibilities for bringing up the next generation. i have a story that just epitomizes the attitude of whenty, even in the 1970's the women's movement was a wind -- alligned. , have a son now in his 40's

but he was a lively child. i considered him hyperactive. i would get calls once a month to come down to the schools, either the schoolteacher, the principal, or sometimes the school psychologist, and hear the stories of some of my son's latest escapade. i'm sitting in my office at columbia and i am very tired. weary as i was, i said this child has two parents. please alternate calls. it is his father's stern. -- father's turn. after that, even though there was no discernible change in my son's behavior, the calls came

barely once a semester. were reluctant to take a father away from important work and did not hesitate to make a mother feel guilty. >> that is such an important story, yet when i had my own children 30 years later, exactly the same thing happened to me. the called me up every single time. it was not as common. i was not as tactful as you come maybe. this child has two parents. there's a lot of push back. there is a system of separate spheres that has been more resilient than i think we all hoped it would have been. i wanted to shift to the reed v.

reed cases. you wanted a strict standard in the equal protection. then come like a good advocate, you took the position when it seemed like it was going to be hard to get and settled for an intermediate scrutiny standard in which the government had to articulate the classification serve important governmental objectives of were substantially related to those objectives. then when you join the court and the side of the famous equal protection case that ended that line of cases you had begun in you articulate the standard differently. you were quoting from an earlier opinion from justice o'connor, but you reticulated the intermediate scrutiny standard as requiring an immediate

justification. i guess my question is, did this new language up the ante? did it make the standard a little bit more toward strict scrutiny? or will i have to wait to read an opinion? >> we call it a "heightened scrutiny." it came, ironically, from a case -- let me describe. >> craig v. boren, no? before? >> something v. board of massachusetts. this was a civil service system were veterans got points added.

if you are a veteran with a pass, you would go to the top of the list and you would trump a woman who had a 99% score. the civil service jobs in massachusetts, the top jobs, were overwhelmingly male. these are women who had scored very high. they lost out to a veteran who had maybe a score in the 60's. in that case, the opinion was no intent to discriminate against women. the result was "in spite of." there is no attempt to disadvantage women, only an intention to advantage veterans which was its service to the

country and everyone agreed. our argument was that the preference was not being challenged, but it had to be reasonable. it cannot operate so it cuts out virtually everyone in that opinion. reed v. reed was practical basis which meant that the classification would have to fail. >> it might constitutional law professor called it the idiot test. >> to look at all the old legal protection tests to find good

language and i find one, a case that was probably decided the wrong way during brandeis when a serve -- and if you other jurors dissented. there were some favorable to striking down arbitrary classifications. the heightened scrutiny, the seemingly persuasive justification was the best phrase that i could use. it had been used at least twice before. >> by justice o'connor in mississippi v hogan. >> that was in 1982 in this case was in the 1970's. >> and that is why you did not

cite crag wie -- craig v. boren. let's go on. you said you think you would never be confirmed because of your activism with the aclu. what do think has changed? is it the confirmation process for politics more broadly? when i was nominated for the job that i now have, chief justice burger came to congratulate me and he said, "ruth, when i became chief in 1969, mike confirmation hearing lasted exactly one hour. -- my confirmation hearing

lasted one hour." the difference is one word -- tv. they have all the time to communicate the folks back home to impress them with their knowledge and they're not going to give that up. that has not changed. what has changed was back in 1993 and 1994 when justice brier was nominated -- breyer was nominated, there was a true spirit in that congress. now vice president, then a senator, joe biden was the chair of the committee. the leading republican member was orrin hatch. you can read his biography or autobiography and he will tell you with great pride that before

the president nominated he, before he nominated justice breyer that he called senator hatch and said, "i am thinking ornominateing ginsberyg breyer, breyer or ginsberg. would that be ok with you?" that does not happen anymore. i was confirmed 96-3. think of the vote for elena kagan. negativeany more votes because they were voting along party lines. it will take people on both sides of the aisle with a sense to really care to make government work.

i should say, by the way, that the white house people were quite worried about my aclu affiliation and what they called the preparation for "murder boards." people in the white house staff would play the part of different senators and the questions would be around this way. "you were in the aclu board in the year 1976. in that year, they passed these resolutions. did you vote for them?" i said , "stop." i will not do anything to disparage the aclu. grudgingly, they gave up and there was not a single question

asked by any center -- senator about the work that i had done with the aclu. that would not happen today. >> gone with the wind. if you could accomplish one thing before leaving the bench assuming that all of your colleagues would magically agree, what would that they be? >> it is hard to pick just one. [laughter] i would probably go back to the day when the supreme court when we said the death penalty cannot be administered by [inaudible] that the not likely to be an opportunity for me. it is the hardest part of the job i do. i do not know how many calls i got because of the execution

schedule for 7:00 p.m. tonight in texas. it has been staid. that is a dreadful part of the business. i have to make hard decisions. i could have said as justice brennan and justice marshall said to take it out and say the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases, but if i did that i would have no voice in what is going on. i would not be able to make things, perhaps, a little better. i stayed in that business. as far as general classifications are concerned, i do not think the labels mean as much as a law students or law professors mean that they do. watch what the court does, not

the words that they use. >> use and that you're not a fan of the different levels of scrutiny and that you, in the ideal world, would shift to more of an equal citizenship idea. i've been like to hear you talk about that a little bit more and especially about whether or not that provides enough guidance. >> the jury cases are perfect examples of that. you treat people as equals citizens come equal in opportunity, equal in what they can aspire to do. i do think also that thurgood marshall had the right idea when he said it really depends on a sliding scale how important is

the right, how important is the government interests in defense of a claim. just as though we would not recognize the racial classifications at the time that it existed, it should be, for all people, which cannot be stopped from pursuing whatever talent god has given us simply because we are of a certain race, religion, national origin, gender, or gender preference. >> when is this supposed to end? >> 25 minutes. >> fabulous. as being on the supreme court, more or less, been what he thought it would be like, or has

it been different? if so, how so? >> the most surprising thing to me was the high level of the collegiality. you may not get that idea if you read, for example, justice scalia's defense in the bmi case. >> i noticed. >> but that's his style. his opinions are always attention-grabbing. if i do not say anything bad about the other side, it may be boring, but it is a different style. justice o'connor wrote as i did and never put down the other side, the judge who decided the case in the court of first

instance or any appeals. >> when i read some of those opinions, and i have been reading a lot of them, sometimes wonder how after deciding a very divided case you guys come to work the next day and see each other at the coffee machine. how does it work? >> we really genuinely like each other. scalia is my biggest buddy at the office. we have a travel to different places in the world together. for the best example that i can give as the court, first is colo-rectal cancer diagnosed in

september, and in october everyone rallied around me to make it possible for me to show up in court. that first sitting session come at the end of it, justice rehnquist called me into is office and said, "ruth, i think we should keep you light. what case would you like to have it from this sitting?" this is something he had never done before. going to go through chemo and radiation in there will come a time where i need a lighter schedule, but there are two cases i would love to have. and he said those were the two

you was thinking of writing, but he still gave me one. she called me in the house bill and said i was going to get a lot of cards --in the hospital. when you get up to chemotherapy, schedule it on a friday see you can get over it saturday and sunday and be back in court. everyone cared and it took care of me so i could get through that hard time. the same thing with my pancreatic cancer surgery two years ago. >> i think that is a side of the relationship among the justices that we do not see often because it is not written down.

we allalso said that revere the courts. "what we want to do is make sure we do not do any damage to it, and that means none of us can project power will simply -- singularly." can you talk about that sense of role and purpose? >> the u.s. supreme court is unique in the world to the extent that society accepts the court is having the final word on what the constitution means. because that is a heavy responsibility, they have to have five people that would agree on what the outcome is.

can you think about what i am doing? i am writing for a court, not myself. if i am assigned the opinion, i tried to incorporate the view of others on my side. if i circulate an opinion and someone asked me to take up footnote four or adding a citation to an opinion on such page, why not? i am enheartented. john said he always tried to write his opinions as clearly and plainly as he could, but if a colleague wanted him to put in something else, an elite it goes.

let the law school's figure out what it meant. [laughter] [applause] >> having been a law professor for over 30 years, i thank you. when something does make sense, you just heard her say that it does not make sense. >> i can say, too, that there is a lot of togetherness on the court and we have exchanges from people in other countries and maybe two, three, four of us. we have had exchanges with the european court of justice a few times. i was in india with justice scalia. >> on an elephant. >> yes. it was rather magnificent. it was a very elegant elephant and my feminist friends, when

they see the photograph of ginsburg and scully on this elephant, they always ask, "why are you sitting in the back?" >> you heard it here. we did say that. i wanted to talk to you about international porn law. you said learning about another legal system opened your eyes to the facets of your own system. "i frankly do not understand the reservations about referring to foreign and international law." i was talking to a friend of mine when you're back on the d.c. circuit. and even then, you met with judges from other countries and met often with them in the united states. i wanted to ask what kind of insight your studies have given you in other systems and to our own.

>> there are other ways to achieve the same end oand there are bright minds in other places struggling with the other basic human rights issues that confront us. think of the balance between liberty and security. how much liberty are we willing to give up in the name of security? one case and give as an example comes from the supreme court of israel. it is a judgment in the so- called ticking bomb case. the question before the court was if the police have a suspect that they believe knows where and when a bomb is going to go off, can the police use

extraordinary means, to put it bluntly -- torture, to extract that information? the message of the opinion was, "torture? never." the explanation is that if we allow security concerns to so overwhelmed our deep attachment to fundamental human values, to the dignity of each person that we will become more and more to look like our enemy. what greater victory could we hand them then, over time, to resemble them in their disrespect for human dignity?

i'd think we have a majority on the court that recognizes the value of references to what courts are doing abroad. i should qualify that by saying what another court does, it is never a binding precedent in the united states courts. these are not people serving our system, but still. if i can read and refer an opinion to any law review article, even a student note in a long journal, and no one questions that, why should we question a side note to an opinion from, say, the supreme court of canada, the german constitutional court, or the european court of human rights? >> thune also said that, in some ways, u.s. courts's failure to engage in decisions with other

countries could undermine the overall influence of this country and undermine the sense that we're part of the world's community. >> yes. until world war ii, we did not work abroad because there was nothing to look at. most symptoms were pierced the attached to parliamentary supremacy which meant the legislature come in on the court, saying what the constitution means. after world war ii, constitutional court's emerged in many places in the world. those courts have only one place to look in those read the decisions of the u.s. supreme court.

after some years when i went abroad, i was often asked after there were looking at the decisions of our court to see what they think about these are questions. yet, they never referred to the decisions. do you not think that we have something to contribute to this international conversation? what i have said is that, with many courts engaged in this activity, if we do not listen to others, if we pay no attention to what they're doing we will not be listened to. i think, nowadays, it may be

that the canada's supreme court is deciding in four decisions more frequently than decisions of the united states supreme court. why? if you pick up the decisions of that court on questions of human rights, you will find that they refer to decisions of the court. we do not very often. there are notable exceptions in -- what was the case? the case that held that a consensual same-sex relations cannot be made a crime. laurnce v. texxas. -- lawrence v. texas. they signed an opinion for the

court of human rights from 1981. then there were several following decisions, not because they were bound by the european court of human rights, but because that court has recognized that consensual milesians between two people that do no harm to anyone cannot be something that government prohibits. also in some of the death penalty cases, there have been references to pour in decisions, foreign legislation's. you think there would be more and more of it. when our nation was no, we looked abroad. it was very common. >> it was standard. >> as far as international law is concerned, examining the law

of another nation, we are among the world's greatest nations, so we are bound by the law of nations, international law in john marshall's day. >> i have to ask one question or could not face my friends. since i am an appointed lawyer, you know what case i will ask about. duke v. walmart. >> i thought it was going to be ledbetter. >> that was such a happy case in terms of the ultimate result. your dissent in ledbetter really turned heads because you read from the bench for one of the first times in your career,

and this was back in 2007. one question before i get back to walmart, was before that, you had almost never or maybe never read from the bench. what changed? >> the courts custom is that the majority opinion will be summarized from the bench. then the person who -- the majority opinion or summarizes it, then they will say, "justice so when so filed a dissenting opinion joined by -- and this is not summarized." if you think that the court not simply got it wrong but, to used the expression "profoundly misguided, a egregiously wrong." and you want to call attention

to that, in the blood better case, there was an immediate object -- in the ledbetter case, we said the ball was now in congress' court to say what they meant all along. in other cases, you are speaking to a later court, last every dissent hopes that the law will be, one day, as they thought it should be. you think of those great dissenters in the first amendment cases, brandeis, and most of the descents are coming today, the law of the land. either you are aiming for an immediate reaction in the reaction to ledbetter was just like the reaction to the gilbert

case that said discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not discrimination on the basis of sex. then there was the pregnancy discrimination act which was the result of that. it made people understand that the coalition's war abroad. everyone came on board for the pregnancy discrimination act and there were similar reactions in the lily ledbetter case. >> bringing you back so that i can survive, back to walmart. the supreme court opinions really unsettled class-action a lot in a very big way and really, it also changed the economics of a class-action law. i struggled to find a question that i could ask you, and it could not find one, but here's

what i came up with. what are some of the key issues that divided the majority and the dissenters? some of us were surprised at part of the majority opinion that the dissenters signed on, but i do not want to get too wonky. >> there are two parts to walmart. one is the basic requirement to have a class-action that you have a common question of law or fact. that is a gate with determination that has to be made in every class-action. it had been considered not a very high hurdle. the court held that it is quite a steeper will. it is a common question of law or fact in the walmart case was

that women, overwhelmingly, were not getting raises, were not being promoted at the rate that men were getting raises were being promoted. the court said that this class has 1.5 million people discreet employment questions. how could there be any commonality? maybe one woman was passed over because she was stealing from the till. maybe another one was just incompetent. the dissenters understood the

argument that there were people making decisions in they were overwhelmingly white men. the people that they were choosing for the promotions were of the same race, the same gender. perhaps there was not delivered discrimination, but people feel more comfortable with people like themselves. the example i gave you in the opinion criticizing the majority was that there was a great transformation in symphony orchestras in the united states with the simple device of dropping the curtains of the addition arden not know if it was a woman or a man. as i mentioned to the

constitutional law class, my violinist friend told me that it was more than that. they auditioned shoeless. they could hear the woman coming on stage, her heels. there was no deliberate discrimination, and there was a certain perception of a woman on stage. it was different than when it was a man. there is that part. the other part, on which we all agree, was what kind of class- action should this be? if what they are seeking is injunction relief, then they can go under and easier for to deal with them -- than b-3 were the

predominant complaint is money. the b-2 classes had been prominent in the civil rights era when people were seeking class relief like no segregation in schools. you wanted a decree that would bind everyone. it would not matter if one member said they liked to be segregated. it was the same thing with the effort put women on juries. some women might say, "i like it the way it is. do not change it." the relief has to be the same for every member of the class. that is what b-2 is meant to deal with, not money claims. the claim in walmart was that they wanted injunctive relief and backpay. the court felt that the driving

force in that case was the money. most of the women in the class had already left walmart's employ. the injunction would not mean much to them, but every woman wanted the money, and frankly so the lawyers. we said this class is fit for b-3 classification but not for b-2 and we were unanimous in that judgment. you could not take a class- action rule that dealt with many claims and injunctive relief claims and try to shove money claims into the injunctive relief. >> i will ask two more short questions, but before i do, i wanted to thank everyone who

helped me prepare for this interview. linda greenhouse, hillary, beth, lori, joel, susan williams, and my gender and law class. here are my last two questions. first, what is your favorite comfort food? [laughter] >> marty made so many wonderful things, so it is hard for me to pick out the one thing. i do not know if you would call it a comfort food, but the ambassador of france to the united states had dinner with us one evening and marty made the best baguettes outside of france. the mandate his own bread.