in new hampshire. it is part of her three-date tour of the state. [applause] >> people are gathered in washington this week for the voters summit. this is about 25 minutes. ♪ >> thank you. my goodness. thank you for that powerful welcome. thank you for that to a rousing introduction. he knocked it out of the park. on any given sunday he is working with 10,000 texans in

his church. again, thank you. i am also proud to be joined today by my best friend. someone who has done more than in which my life than any other person. an individual who will be a fabulous first lady for the u.s., my wife, anita. [applause] it is good to be with all of you. i want to thank tony perkins for the invitation to speak at this event today and for his work in advancing the conservative constitutional principles that have built the greatest nation on to the history of civilization. thank you. many of you come to this gathering of value voters and it strikes me as interesting.

in americao odvoter who is not a value voter. it is just a question of whose values that they share. [laughter] they seek more than equal opportunity. they seek out equal outcomes. those on to the white house today do not believe in an american essentialism. they would rather emulate the policies of europe. but we have seen what their policies have led to. 14 million americans out work. 45 million americans on food stamps. according to wednesday's wall street journal, nearly half of americans now receive government

benefits. in response to this economic misery, liberals are now pointing fingers. when did it under phrases like "fair share" you just know they are just playing fast and furious with the truth. [laughter] the truth is, you cannot run up the engine of economic growth by spreading success by punishing it. you cannot unite our country by dividing it. the answer to our troubles lies in a positive, optimistic vision with policies rooted in american exceptional is them. american exceptional is and is the prospect of unlimited freedom. there is nothing troubling our

nation today that cannot be solved with the rebirth of freedom. nothing. [cheers and applause] i happen to believe in this great country of ours. i believe in our capacity to grow. i believe in the values of the american people. americans know anything worth achieving in life requires hard work, not the government handouts. in this present generation of americans, they are not looking for government to lead the way. they are looking for america to get out of the way so they can make the most of the freedom for their families. but you cannot live free if you cannot find a job. you cannot live free if you inherent bills and debt.

you cannot live free when the government gets between you and your doctor. i believe it is time to revive freedom for our families and employers. if we want to get small businesses back on their feet again, we need to free all of the pending federal regulations that are out there for the next six months. free them all. [cheers and applause] we need to cut taxes for families and employers because the only kind of stimulus that will work is the kind that puts more money in your pockets, not the government. [applause] we need to repeal the job killing bureaucratic nightmare that is known as obamacare. [cheers and applause] there are three pillars that serve as the foundation of our

country. strong economy, strong families, and a strong military. in my own state, we have created 40% of american jobs since june 2009. our success is based on four simple principles. one, do not spend all the money. [laughter] to come to keep taxes low. 3, have a regulatory climate. or, stop a frivolous lawsuits. -- four, stop the third list lawsuits. -- stop the frivolous lawsuits. at the same time as the fed chairman warns that the recovery

is close to a faltering, just yesterday the texas comptroller's office said that our tax revenues have rebounded to pre-recession levels. [applause] are august home sales rose. our employment expanded. our exports increased. many thatcher and activity started climbing again. yet there was president obama standing in front of the white house, going back on the same strategies that have worsened our economy. it goes to show you that those blinded by tax and spend, big government ideology will never see the truth. every day it is clear that the

u.s. economy, for it to grow, we need new leadership. [cheers and applause] president obama's commitment to the same pro-government, pro- regulation policies, they failed our nation. america needs a new leader with a proven record of job creation and sound economic policy. texas is not immune to the facts of the national economic environment, but recent reports show that low and fairer taxes and reasonable and fair regulation restrain government spending is a proven recipe for job creation. the key to prosperity is liberty.

yet the larger government gross, the smaller our circle of freedom. the most basic unit of government is family. as a conservative, i believe with all my heart that the government closest to the people is the best for the people. there should not be a single policy coming out of washington that interferes with decisions best made by the family. [cheers and applause] i am proud to be the son of to tenant farmers. were we grew up we did not have much of material goods, but we were rich in spirit. we were bonded in faith. we been devoted to family.

happiness was not a product of what we had, it was what to be believed. we believed we were blessed to live in the freest nation on this earth. we were fortunate to grow up where there was a strong sense of community. there was nothing that we could not achieve onto the land of the free and home of the brave. in fact, my little country school where i grew up and graduated had a model. "no dream too small for a school too small. there are many americans who grow up in less than ideal circumstances. maybe they were born without a parent. but there is a society that stands for every life.

every life is worth living, regardless of the circumstance in america. [applause] in america it is not where you come from that matters, but where you are going. as americans we must reaffirm the values of life not just in our declaration of independence, but in the way be lit. some candidates followed prevailing winds. for me, it is about the absolute principle that every human being is entitled to life. all human life is made in the image of our creator. [cheers and applause] every innocent life must be protected.

but the most frail and elderly to the most abominable who have not been born yet. that is why i have consistently worked for pro-life legislation. a ban on third-trimester abortions. i am proud to fight for and brought to sign a budget that defunded planned parenthood in texas. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. our obligation is not only to protect life and as the freedom

on future generations. it is also to instill character. young americans must never be talked about rights without also learning about responsibilities. [applause] cannot ignore the responsibilities of free individuals. we must never mistake liberty for license. one is a right, the other leads to bondage. for more than a generation, our culture has emphasized this message of self-indulgence at the expense of social obligation. we have reaped the consequences in the form of teen pregnancies, divorced and broken families, the cycle of incarceration, the fabric of our

society is not government or individual freedom. it is family. the demise of the family is the demise of any great society. [applause] this a great country of ours has never been scared off course when we have advocated policies that expand freedom and promote strong families. neither can it be preserved without an unwavering commitment to our national security. as americans we are blessed to have the greatest fighting force for freedom in this entire world. our men and women of the u.s. military. [applause]

there are some out there, misguided souls who say you cannot find heroes anymore. mike, mike. are they ever wrong. -- my, my. are they ever wrong. we have heroes today. they are fighting in the mountains of afghanistan and on to the sands of iraq. they are covert in areas that we do not know of. they put their lives on the line every day so that we did not have to. over the years i have been honored to have met many of those great american heroes as i have travelled to the outpost in iraq and afghanistan. i have signed letters to their

loved ones who have made the ultimate sacrifice. i consider myself fortunate to have been able to wear the uniform of our country. that experience informs my perspective about our defense policies, specifically i believe we must never put the military on the chopping block for arbitrary budget cuts as part of some political stratagem. never. [cheers and applause] the question we must ask is not what we can afford to spend on our military, but what it cost

to remain secure and free. a real key component of keeping america's secure is keeping israel secure. [cheers and applause] week -- we can never forget it was israel who take out the nuclear capabilities of iraq in 1981 and in syria in 1997. they are our friends. when i am president of the u.s., america will once again stand with our friends. [cheers and applause] we are not going to compromise

when it comes to our national security. that is true when it comes to defense spending and it is also true when it comes to border security. let me say this about borders security. i have lived and breathed this issue for over a decade of the border governor. i have signed budget that contained thousands of dollars of state security operations along that border. i have dealt with the carnage caused by those who traffic in drugs and weapons and people. as a border governor, i know firsthand the failure of our federal order policies. i know the answers to those of failures is not to grant amnesty for those who break our laws and come into our country. [cheers and applause] i was proud to signed legislation that required a good

idea to vote in to protect the integrity of our election. [applause] and for the obvious security reasons, i vetoed legislation to the -- to give drivers license to illegal aliens. there is no homeland security without border security. let me repeat that. there is no security without border security. make no mistake about it, but we are seeing some of our border is nothing short of a war being waged by these terrorists. they represent a clear and present danger to our country. they are spreading violence to american cities. they are peddling poisons to our children. in the face of this threat, we should not take any options off the table, including security operations and cooperation with

the mexican government as we did with columbia some years ago. you cannot have liberty, you cannot have opportunity, you cannot have prosperity without security. the issue before our leaders of both parties is securing a better future for all americans. economic security is a topic of discussion at the millions of dinner tabor's -- dinner tables across this country. i had the great privilege to travel across this country and listened to thousands of americans. they are not under any illusions about the the current state of our country. they never mistaken hope for a handout. they want to earn their keep. they are not looking for soaring

speeches. they are looking for common sense solutions. they know that our first order of business to getting america working again is sending our current president to the private sector. [laughter] [cheers and applause] like all of you in here, i still believe in the exceptionally some of america. america remains the last, best hope of mankind. we must never forget that the exceptional is some of america can be traced right into our founding principles. the framers of our constitution with a first in history to declare that all men are created

equal, endowed by their creator with certain on a milk -- unalienable rights. that has guided america throughout our history from to arrivest columns - in the new world. to the defeat of tierney during two world wars and a cold war. time and time again, america has been the source of light in a world that has been swallowed by darkness. like a lighthouse on the ocean shore, we have provided a safe harbor to millions who have been a drift in a sea of economic misery. we can still be the country that we aspire to.

we can still be a source of light, hope to all who live here and those who come here. incurred by our ideals, we can rebuild on the solid the foundation of truth instead of the shifting sands of moral relativists. we can restore hope at home while projecting outward values abroad. we can be the freest, most prosperous people ever to occupy the plan if we remain one nation under god. god bless you. thank you for allowing me to participate here today. ♪ >> what were videos of the candidates. trapped the latest campaign contributions. the latest campaign contributions on our website c-

span.org. >> on this day, harry reid of the senate role and force an unusual vote on the ruling. we talked to a reporter about why it happened and what it may mean for feature senate sessions. >> explain to us what these significancy of these procedural votes were last night in the senate. >> it is complicated. the bigger picture is that with a simple majority, it would allow people to get votes on these motions to suspend the rules even after you have already gotten 60 votes to go ahead and debate on a bill.

this is a rarely used tactic that the republicans tried to use last night. it is a tactic that has not been successful since 1941. the republicans were pretty close actually to using this tactic to amend this china currency bill last night. you need 67 votes to suspend the rules for one of these amendments after closure and there was one amendment and one of the regulations that was potentially get 67 votes. harry reid did not want to allow that vote. he basically, when republicans insisted on having that but, reid and the democrats and nipped the ability to use this gambit ever again by saying that if any try to have any of these

motions to suspend the rules after closure, it will be considered delegatory. it means you're just doing it to delay things. it is a real power play on the part of the democrats. it is the kind of thing that the democrats have avoided doing. there is a big push earlier this year to reform the senate rules. they tinkered on the edges. this is still in the realm of tinkering on the edges. republicans warned last night that you cannot turn the senate into the house. republicans have no clear opportunities to offer to get a guaranteed vote. >> with about last night, does that mean that republicans will not be able to bring up an

amendment bill on the president's jobs bill? eah. have a procedural vote that the republicans could say, this is a vote on the jobs bill. the democrats had agreed to that and they could have that vote if they had given up on this amendment. that is a way that things went last night. they could have gotten the jobs bill but -- vote. so that meant there was no vote on the jobs bill or even a procedural vote on the jobs bill yesterday. that means that the democrats will control how the bill comes

next week. did it will alter it and make it more better for the members and make it easier for democrats to amend it. they did not want to be into the position of having several other members vote against before it comes up in a way that they want. to do want to be as unified as possible. they do not want to give republicans opportunity to say that there is a majority opposing this package. >> steven dennis, roll-call. we have linked to that on our web site c-span.org. he is one of the many reporters we follow on twitter. thank you for that update. >> thank you.

>> and now from washington, a profile of the life of charles evans hughes on the c-span series "contenders." [no audio]

>> it is what we claim we want in a presidential candidate and president. >> a man named charles evans hughes. he had been governor of new york and a supreme court justice. he had all but won the election. when he went to bed that election night, woodrow wilson thought he was beaten. >> american history goes on in several different directions. on suffrage for women, so more rights, what you do and -- what is he doing for foreign policy? he is the one you could write novels about. >> he was on the supreme court. he left the supreme court. he ran for president. then he went back to the supreme court. one of the finest minds on the court. >> of fellow justice called

hughes the greatest and a great line of supreme court justices. >> why hughes? >> andrew jackson said that hughes "looks like god and talks like god." [laughter] >> charles evans hughes -- the republican presidential nominee soon after the national convention. tonight, we look at the life and legacy of charles evans hughes who was a two-term governor, secretary of state, and twice a supreme court justice. he was perhaps best known as one of the co-authors of the new deal. -- the chief justice jury the new deal. we're broadcasting live across from the capitol. he inaugurated this building when it first opened in 1935. let me introduce you to our two guests this evening were joining -- who are joining us to

talk about the life and legacy of charles evans hughes. my first guest is an historian, david pietrusza, and bernadette meyler is a professor at cornell law school. a that is his alma mater. i want you to set the stage for us. 1916, woodrow wilson wants to be reelected. europe is at war. frame what was going on in the country and the presidential campaign. >> president wilson said it would be a tragedy if his administration was defined by foriegn policy. it turned out to be just that. america starts his term focusing on the progressive era, the income tax, lowering the tariffs, the federal reserve system. changes that after 1914. we have the war in europe. america is fighting to stay out.

but there is a question of preparedness for the war. are we prepared? are we being tough? are we weak? the secretary of state resigns from wilson's cabinet because he thinks we're being too tough. it is really a question of war and peace in europe, war and peace in mexico. aside from all the domestic issues. war overshadows everything. >> how does he get from the supreme court to the nominating process? >> he gets there somewhat reluctantly because he enjoyed his position as associate justice of the court. he was class -- quite satisfied with his role there. but then he felt called by duty after several candidates did not pan out for the republicans. he felt called to accept the nomination for president.

in a sense, he was not a particularly gung-ho candidate. >> what was the republican party like? >> it fractured in 1912. there was the great teddy roosevelt/william howard taft split. teddy ran as the bull moose party candidate. there is a real question. are they going to be able to put the republican party back together again? do you take roosevelt? roosevelt is still radioactive with the old-guard. if you take someone too progressive, then they will not come back. you have got to pick someone who is respected by both sides. someone who is not some wild man from the prairies or from the west like johnson, someone who was not a conservative like roots, and the man to do it, also the man who has been out of politics since 1910, he was

on the supreme court. he was not part of the 1912 battle. that is mr. hughes. and he is respected by just about everyone in the party. >> what were his politics at the time? >> his politics were mildly progressive. he is not a wild man from the west. like norris. but what he is, he had moved from the practice of law. he was never interested really in being part of politics. when he first comes to new york and establishes his law practice is -- "would you like to run for judge?" "no." "would you like a judicial appointment?" "no." but he is asked to investigate the gas monopoly in new york city. it is really gouging the customers. it has been going on since 1880. they come to him and they say, do you want to take over this

investigation? "no, i really do not." but he does. he asks how much time he has to prepare testimony for the hearings. they say "a week." but with the brilliance this man had, he was able to pull it all together, to go through all the papers, grill the executives on the stand, bring the whole thing down. ultimately what this leads to is of public service commission in new york state, and to have the gas bill and electricity rates cut by a third, and then he moves on to fixing the insurance agency in new york state and really becomes a national figure. this is 1906 until -- just before 1906. he is a progressive-type candidate who is opposed to the machine of the democrats in tammany, because they are protecting these monopolies, but also the massive new york state's political machine.

and teddy roosevelt would defer to the bosses to some extent. hughes with through the hole puncher reforms. -- wins the governorship and puts forward a whole bunch of reforms. then he moves on to the core for the first time. -- the court for the first time. >> this would be unimaginable for someone to resign from this position and run for a national elected office. what was the reaction of the time? was a surprise? >> i think some were surprised, but i think the office of the supreme court justice was not quite what it has become now. i think part of the reason people would be shocked if a justice resigned as the process is so much more difficult to get through and some much more difficult to confirm any justice. justices are appointed young and expected to stay for the rest of their working career. his first appointment as

justice was actually quite contentious. -- uncontentious. his second one was almost tohe beginning of the contentions within the appointment process. in occurred early soon after there were new rules on the senate debate for nominees and garnered a lot of criticism from progressives, actually. >> we are on the plaza of the supreme court. beautiful early october night here. we will be here for two hours tonight. 14 men who ran for the presidency and lost but changed political history. charles evans hughes made his mark through many positions, but particularly in his role as chief justice. in the second half of our program, we will focus on that whole contentious error what the court packing -- contentious era with the court packing and

the new deal. he was at the helm during that. we will open up our phone lines for each of these programs that allow you to offer your questions and observations as part of our discussion. where was the republican convention that year? >> i think it was philadelphia. there were two conventions going on within a block of each other. that is the real interest in geography that year. the republicans went through a series of ballots. i think hughes's third on the first ballot. he moved up until he is on the first ballot. -- he is nominated on the third ballot. meanwhile, the progressives are meeting just a short ways away, and what they are doing is debating who they can accept. t.r. is basically saying "i am not going to do it." he throws out a couple names. leonard wood, a big army general. an advocate of preparedness. he has gotten in trouble with

the wilson administration. or henry cabot lodge. neither one is acceptable to the progressives. he is throwing out that poison pill. in the end, the only one they can agree on, a progressive, to any extent, is hughes. but they still are in a great tiff, and they kind of dissolve the party. the party of that operates. -- just evaporates. they go way. they do not run a third party. this is one of the great things of the legacy of hughes' race. we take the republican for granted as a continuing thing since 1916, since lincoln. it did not have to be in 1916. if he is not a guy willing to put it back together, maybe the progressives go back and we do not know what happened. maybe the republicans do not go the way of the whigs. maybe the progressives replace it. who can say? the thing is, hughes takes the

position. he did not want to do it. he is uncertain what to do. he walks away from the supreme court. what he had said when he had taken it and they were talking in 1912, he would be the compromise candidate. to avoid the taft/roosevelt split. he said no, no, no, i will not do it. the democrats fully criticize nominating a judge for the presidency. and there is a reason for that. in 1904, they take alton b. parker and run him for the presidency. >> does he get the nomination on the first ballot? >> parker? no, hughes. no, he gets it on the third ballot. >> so they come to the court and said down with them and say here is our offer? >> the elected candidates would

not go to the convention. there was a nominating process. a week later, they have a speech and, surprise, you are our nominee. the fellow doing it that year was warren harding. the chair of the convention. he was really undecided. his family members, his closest associates are not sure what he is going to do. they had people in the early days of the republican party. -- of the republic who resigned from the court to take a position. there was a david davis bid to a judicial senate nomination back in illinois. but not since then, and that not since hughes. >> can you tell us -- how was he as a national campaigner? >> that campaign is probably the worst thing he ever does. in his life really.

not just his public career. he excelled at everything. that campaign, he got off the mark slowly. he is doing a dance. it is the dance that jack kennedy and richard nixon do in 1960. we have the black vote in the north, the southern white vote. what do we do? kennedy carries both. the same thing occurs with the peace votes and the pro-war people in 1916. wilson runs a campaign "he kept us out of war." and it's hughes doing this dance. and he ends up losing both sides really. he loses the pro-war people and the people who want to stay neutral. he is branded as being pro- german. you see these editorial cartoons.

from william randolph hearst, with the irish nationalists and all those. and the other day, the german- americans vote goes to wilson. he does not elucidate the campaign themes well. he is opposed to the tariff. it is not a popular position for the republicans that year. there are labor issues. there are labor issues that are very important. there are two things that prop -- cross him up. even though as governor of new york, he has an admirable record. he establishes cases, that entire system. the first in the country. there's also labor regulations put in place for the first time. he is really a champion of labor. but there there are two things that happened. but then the infamous california trip, which we will get into later, there are two things that happen. the one thing that is never talked about, he blunders into san francisco, and the chamber of commerce tried to do this in

-- trying to break the unions, particularly in the restaurants and wanted to be open shop. in other words, you do not have to join the union. the four-star restaurants to offer up open shop signs. where did they schedule in his appearance? in a restaurant. an open shop sign right on the door. not only in california, but around the country. union members around the country. also, in september, there is a national rail strike threatened. the administration and congress passes the adams map which -- act, which establishes the eight-hour day, first time nationwide. the constitutionality is threatened later. hughes opposes it. again, this cuts into his labor vote. so he has got problems and he really does not -- he is not able to come out and say what he would do better than wilson. >> here are the phone numbers. we will get calls in a few

moments. in addition to labor issues, there were also women's suffrage issues. women did not have the right to vote at the national level. can you tell us about that aspect of the campaign? >> wilson had already changed his position to some extent on women's suffrage. initially he was opposed to the notion women would have the vote. both of his wives were actually of this view. one of his daughters though became quite active in the suffrage movements, and his views were gradually shifting. at the time of the election campaign in 1916 he still believe women's suffrage should be decided on a state-by-state level. rather than by a national commitment. and use went far beyond that.

-- the hughes went far beyond that. and far beyond all the republicans. he claimed that there should be a women's suffrage amendment. and this is puzzling because the states where women could vote actually went for wilson rather then hughes, which is somewhat paradoxical. there could be many reasons for that. one of them being this issue of the war and the women's peace movement. >> 12 states have given women the right to vote at that time. for his support of women's suffrage, a group of supporters of the charles evans hughes it formed a club, campaigned for him, and they went by the hughesettes. kind of modern if you think about it. we have some interesting things to show you. one of his nieces had put -- one of the nieces of the

hughesettes has put together a hughesettes website. we are showing new some history of her aunt in the 1916 election. just a further explained your -- just to further explain your position, and his law firm where he practiced in private practice to exist today. we went there and spoke to one of the senior partners to talk a little bit about charles evans hughes and his support for women voting. >> also very proud and the original edition of the independent weekly magazine that came out the week after justice hughes got the republican nomination for the presidency. mrs. hughes, she is on here in support of women's suffrage,

which she supported as well. one of the things we were not aware of -- the republican party platform in 1916 was that each state would have the right to determine whether or not women would have the right to vote. does this hughes -- justice hughes said he would go beyond the republican party platform and support the susan b. anthony amendment and in the to the constitution that would give women the right to vote. it would not give each state the right to determine whether each woman could vote. >> and from not we will move to the election. i know that some of you will have questions about the outcome. i read that woodrow wilson went to bed on election night thinking he had lost. >> i would not say he was resigned to it. he was about ready to either give up the presidency nobly or in a huff.

it is your call. he has a plan where it is like, ok, i have lost. i am getting out. back then, presidents did not take office in january. they had to wait until march before they left office. you had a big interregnum. you had a situation or the -- a situation where the country was moving towards war. what do you do? his plan was he would appoint hughes as secretary of state, getting the jump on warren harding, because secretary of state was second in line to the presidency. once hughes -- or secretary of state lansing was shuffled aside for hughes, then the vice president would resign and then wilson -- it was sort of a three-point plan -- and hughes would become president until he formally took his term. >> what happened was it was an incredibly close election.

>> oh, yes. incredibly. >> tells about the electoral vote. >> it was about a quarter of a million popular vote. not that close and the popular total. -- in the popular total. what it is, it is so close in california. that is the key. it is divided by 13 electoral votes, and that is what the situation was in california. the second incident that occurs in california, and really the particular nature of the incident is overplayed, because again, back to that progressive party convention that kind of dissolved and left the field open to hughes. they're in a bad mood. they are not resolved. as to who they would endorse. one of the people with a bad temper was the senator hiram johnson from california. he is a very ornery guy.

hughes has to get to the east coast. he swings through california before the primary. johnson is the governor. the californian republican party is so split. they cannot make decisions of who will escort who. who will chair the meeting -- it is worse than the palestinians and israelis. the feelings are so bad. finally what happened is, there is an incident in long beach, california where hughes who heads the not met johnson goes -- who has still not met johnson goes in to rest in the hotel, does not know johnson is there. johnson knows hughes is there. they leave the hotel. they never meet. it is claimed that hughes had alienated johnson in this.

really johnson could have made the move. kenya when he could've gone over. -- he knew and he could have gone over. right after that, hughes through an intermediary invites johnson to chair a meeting in sacramento. johnson refuses. and hughes loses the state by about 3000 votes. they do not know until next friday he lost the state. they do not know he lost the election until that friday. meanwhile, hiram johnson wins the primary and the state of california by something like 300,000 votes. an immense amount. so, a lot of people blame hiram johnson, the pacific incident, -- they blame that specific incident, but in fact in the first meeting of the progressives when johnson goes back to california, they endorsed him, but then they split up. they split up and hold separate meetings. we will be for hughes, we will be for wilson.

he could not have swung all the progressives if he wanted to, but he might have swung more than 1600. >> wilson won nine of the 12 states. what does it say about charles evans hughes, that he was not as much of a political tactician? >> i think he was much more of a principled person and a principled lawyer than a politician in certain respects. i think part of what i mentioned before -- some of the women did not vote for him. because of the perception that he would bring america into war. wilson had promised -- pledged to remain at peace. but one of the things about the hiram johnson incident that it shows about hughes's character is he was not interested in currying favor with other politicians or the party machine. it shows in a very demonstrative way through the

gubernatorial career, he tries to oust some people within the -- to have sent issuers -- who have cinecures within the administration, and that is met disfavorably because people think they deserve loyalty from the republican party. i think that cost him the election. >> we have our first call of the evening from duncan. hello. >> hello. i was curious about any bad things and charles evans hughes might upset about woodrow -- might have said about woodrow wilson. >> any bad things he might have said about woodrow wilson? >> he criticized wilson for preparedness, not having an army and navy up to speed.

" in case war came. he was also very critical of the wilson policy in mexico. or you have the revolutions overthrowing the diaz administration and the country devolves into chaos. you see the movies, "viva via" or "viva zapata." you just sayinee one revolution replacing another. hughes is very concerned that general guerta not impose another dictatorship in mexico. he sends marines. into veracruz to block german warships. there is -- there are these crazy incidents over will they come in? a flag here or not there. -- the flag flew here or not there. but the troops go. mexico gets worse and worse.

and then you get the columbus, new mexico incident where pancho villa killed some american nationals. america since the expeditionary force into mexico. that is another disaster. there is a lot of controversy about mexico. there's a lot of criticism about preparedness and the wilson administration. these are things that hughes played on. >> welcome to the conversation. this is curtis. >> thank you. i just wanted to talk about a very important assertion that hughes wrote about. i will get through this quickly. the national recovery act was -- the national industrial recovery act was ruled unconstitutional in 1935 and a year later the national labor relations act was passed and they thought that was going to be ruled unconstitutional, but

then it came to the high court in 1937. jones and laughlin steel. i think the high court was under pressure to change their position from ruling new deal laws unconstitutional, and hughes wrote that decision. it ruled that the national labor relations act was constitutional. i think the moral to that story is even the high court can be put under political pressure to change their position. thank you very much. >> thank you. we're going to spend more time on a later period of very brief answer. >> it is a crucial point and a crucial point of contention among historians, the question of what's defeated the court packing scheme that franklin roosevelt had proposed. was a politically motivated? was this consistent with an evolution of some of the justices, including chief justice hughes. i think we will get into that later.

>> louisville, ky, what is your question? >> i am just wondering what did -- what were hughes's views on the new deal? what were his views? and thank you for "the contenders." >> their basic outlook of the new deal programs was? >> at the beginning of the new deal, there were striking down a -- they were striking down a lot of new deal legislation. others of the justices, like brandeis, were quite far to the left. others were swing votes. they might strike down various new deal legislations. then there was a fairly radical switch where the new deal

programs began to be up held. >> we will talk a little bit more about charles evans hughes the man. he was described as looking and sounding like god. would you add more color are round this? >> he was 5'11". interestingly enough, he was very slight as a young man. very thin. he weighed 127 pounds. they would not write an insurance policy for him. that would give him the physical and say, we cannot find anything wrong with him, but he is just too thin. so they would not give him up a life-insurance policy. he lived to be about 85. so, he was very vigorous, very active. he reaches an adult weight of about 173 pounds. it was measured very carefully. at breakfast he would have a pile of toast in front of him.

if he was putting too much weight, he would remove a slice of toast. if he did not win enough, he would put another slice on. but this fellow was so slight and not vigorous, but he was a good mountain climber. when he was selected to the -- solicited by the legislature in new york, after the gas inquiry, he goes and says "i need a vacation." he is climbing the alps. he loved it public service so much. this is a point that is very important. this guy keeps coming back to public service again and again and again. and after he was knocked out of the presidency, he might have said the hell with you people. i have done my time. i have fixed this and that and it has cost me money again and

again and again. when he was governor, he poured -- bore his own expenses on so many of the trips. when he was on the supreme court, that did not pay a lot. even before he became the great crusader, he did not take the big cases. he should have been coming into its peak earning powers. one of his great rivals worked for hearst and said at the time he became chief justice, public service had cost hughes $6 million. ok? he gave up so much in time and money to serve the public in job after job, which he did so well. now, his intellect, his brains. he had this first-class brain. robert penn warren said that. it was the same with hughes. 6 years old, goes off to school. he comes on, he says "i am not

learning that much there, dad. i can learn more here." "yes, son?" and he lays out his plan of study hour by hour how he is going to do it and he does it. home schooled. a couple years later, he moves around again, maybe he is going to go back to school. same thing. stays out of school. he is basically home school for -- before home schooling was cool. it completes high-school studies on his own. he is too young to get into college. he has to run around new york city for a year before he can go in. there are stories where -- i think when he was secretary of state or governor, what ever. it does not matter. he was handed a three-page memo before going into a meeting.

he reads it as he is walking, going into the meeting. the stenographer transcribes what he says. it is off by one word. you see stories like that over and over again. >> at the age of 19, he graduated from cornell law school. -- he goes on to cornell law school. >> actually, he taught at cornell law school for two years and he gave up a very lucrative practice in new york which was supervised by his father-in-law in order to take by health break and also to become an academic. he ended up leaving cornell law school, partly because his father-in-law thoughts his grandchildren should not be raised in such a remote location. he often said amongst his happiest times were the times at the cornell law school. >> it was the president of -- graduate of a columbia.

i apologize. we have a clip of him we want to show so you can get a sense of him. he was considered quite a great orator. let's listen to what he sounded like. >> bigotry and racial animosities and intolerance are the deadly enemies of true democracy. there can be no friendly cooperation if they exist. they are enemies more dangerous than any external force. they undermine the very foundation of our democratic effort. >> and we're going to go back to telephone calls. us listen to a call from boston. you are on the air, frederick. >> i would like to ask a question about where charles evans hughes was born. and did he come from a family of money?

where was his family reported -- where did his family get the money? >> born in 1862 in new york. >> his father was a baptist. they were not particularly affluent. they grew up in humble circumstances. he was quite influenced by the baptist background he enjoyed from going up. in fact, his father hoped to become a religious man himself. he was disappointed that he decided to go into law instead of religion. his background did influence his jurisprudence later on. we can argue that. he was quite favorable to religious liberty claims and several opinions where he upheld a very strong view of religion under the second amendment. >> this is daniel. welcome. >> thank you for taking the time to let us get in on the conversation. i have a question about if the

-- when he was perfect -- if he had been president, is the federal reserve would have been created under his administration, and if it had not have been, where might we be today? >> with the federal reserve cut been created under charles evans hughes? but it would not, because it already existed. >> there you go. frank? >> wilson ran on a platform against the war, and there was a tremendous explosion in new york harbor, and after the war, the -- out that black thomas island, and after the war, the o court ruled that german agents had in fact caused the explosion. in the 1970's the german government finally paid the government and indemnity. a wonder if you can comment on the role of the wilson

administration in covering up the explosion and its effect on the election. i will hang up and listen on the tv. >> that was a massive explosion of a ship that actually damaged part of the statue of liberty, shattered windows as far north as 42nd street. the wilson administration did downplay this, because they were trying to keep us out of the war at this point. now it was very difficult for hughes that year. he is fighting two things. the country is very prosperous. there was a slight downturn, but -- slight downturn after the adoption of the underwood tariff, but with the war, neutral parties tend to do very well in wartime. there is great prosperity. he is fighting back. he is fighting the fact that we really are at peace. the trouble that had occurred

after the sinking of the lusitania, the german government comes to its senses momentarily and ends its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. it is not until after the election that it presumes that. -- resumes that. there is tremendous sabotage going on. there is funding of german groups. one of the problems wilson has is they bring up a meeting he had with four pro-german people. one of them was named jeremiah o'leary, an irish nationalist. this is one of the issues of the 1916 campaign. why would there be sentiment -- anti-english sentiment, it would be along the irish population. they were still under the british flag. they wanted independence. he was basing all of these --

hughes was facing all these problems. the question is, what is he going to do about it? the trouble arises after that election, particularly in regard to zimmerman though, where -- does zimmermann note, where germany was plotting to get mexico to attack us and get their lost provinces back. >> can you tell us a little bit more about -- do you know the story? -- do you know more about how he and his wife met? >> i do not. >> she was the daughter of a senior partner -- >> yes. >> another thing we want to highlight was the importance of mrs. hughes in his life. we have selected their wedding invitation and a photograph of the two of them in their prime.

she was the daughter of walter carter, the senior partner in the hughes law firm. he met her at an office holiday party. she was there with her father. issue was a very educated woman, influential in his life. he also had three daughters who together with mrs. hughes, i think they have a great effect on his views, including women's suffrage among other things. >> the partners were not partners in politics. we learned that in our eugene debs program last week. there were out campaigning all the time. >> getting back to their marriage, their courtship is very slow. they need a few times. -- they meet a few times. like every few months or something. and because she is the boss's daughter, he will not go near her. people say, "you married the boss's daughter?" it is really a distortion.

it is only when he is a full partner that the courtship really begins. particularly if you read about their retirement together, how close a couple they are. they are really deeply in love. she is really the first boss who in a full-fledged campaign mode, -- spouse who in a full- fledged campaign mode, they go around the country on a train, almost like a proto-eleanor roosevelt. stuff that was not done then. >> you are on the air, jack. >> my question is about charles evans hughes's perspective on racism at the time. >> his perspective on racism. >> he was actually pretty progressive on race. his first term as associate

justice, he actually wrote an opinion that suggested it was not valid for railroads to fail to create first-class accommodations for african american passengers coming even if they did not have enough passengers to fill those accommodations. he is actually more egalitarian than a lot of his contemporaries. later on he would be a supporter of the separate, but equal -- supporter of decisions that would undermine the separate but equal doctrine and pave the way for brown vs. the board of education. >> i have a question that may be a little bit off the beaten path. this is about the institution of the personal income tax. which party was against it, and which party was for it, may i ask?

>> income tax comes about as part of the revenue act of 1913, i think, and that is important because that is part of the underwood tariff. the democrats lower the tariff. they have to make up the revenue. they passed the 16th amendment. that all folds into the income tax. i would say because the republicans are the tariff party, that the democrats -- -- that the democrats are more in favor of the income tax. but hughes is opposed to the income tax. he reads it and he is a lawyer. he is always reading every word, no matter where those words go. and he says "all revenue."

and he says that means they're going to be able to tax the tax refunds of municipalities and states and destroy the balance of federalism. he opposes the 16th amendment. but on those very narrow grounds. i believe that new york state rejects the amendment. >> you're on the air, joseph. >> good evening. >> in light of the other television programs this week on prohibition, did he have any attitudes or feelings about that ugly affair? >> great question. he is talking about the pbs series about prohibition. always his own position? >> neither he nor wilson would be regarded as drys. he started to take a step during -- sip during the

insurance investigation. he said it was his nurse. this humanizes him. he was very high strung. he started taking a drink then. he was never a big drinker. there is a story told at the havana conference of latin american nations around 1924 or so. he asked the secretary of state whether he will serve booze or not. he walks over there and takes the first one. he is not a prohibitionist. really none of that great national leaders that we can think of or with any enthusiasm at all. >> it is time for us to dive into more of his supreme court years. we are going to say good bye for now to david. we will see him later on. we will do a deep dive into the supreme court years. to begin our discussion, we will show you president franklin roosevelt in 1937, his take on what was commonly called the court packing plant. after that, you will see chief

justice john roberts. he will talk about his perspective on hughes's role during this perspective -- during this period. first, a newsreel from that time introducing us to each of the members of the supreme court in 1937. >> associate justice sutherland. he became a senator from utah. the only supreme court catholic. a democrat who supported president harding. from wyoming -- 78. senior justice,56 years on the bench. james reynolds of tennessee, 75. confirmed bachelor. a democrat appointed by wilson,has voted against every new deal measure. benjamin nathan cardozo, 67,

descended from the jewish rabbi who officiated at george washington's inauguration, appointed by president hoover. harlan stone of new york, a former dean of the columbia university law school. appointed by calvin coolidge. the oldest justice, justice brandeis of kentucky. wilson dared not appoint him attorney general, but did appoint him to the court. and justice owen roberts. at 61, the youngest justice. long a conservative. since this fight began, liberal in seven decisions. and charles evans hughes, 75. chief justice since 1930. sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal.

>> president roosevelt goes on the air in an appeal for popular support for his plan to reorganize the federal judiciary. newsreel cameras filmed his fireside chat, it is his second such appeal within six days. he tells the people that his plan would protect them. >> those opposing the plan have sought to sow prejudice and fear by saying i am seeking to pack the supreme court. and that baneful precedent will be established. what did they mean by "packing the supreme court"? let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. if by that phrase is charged i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets to disregard

the law and decide specific cases as i wish them to be decided, i make this answer. that no president fit for his office would appoint and no senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm that kind of appointee to the supreme court of the united states. we want a supreme court that will do justice under the constitution and not over it. in our courts, we want a government of laws and not of men. >> the court lacking -- the court packing plan was a very serious threat. it was proposed by an immensely popular president. with huge majorities in both houses of congress and targeting a very unpopular court. as fdr put it, "the people are with me." hughes proceeded cautiously,

but with determination. he demolished fdr's efficiency argument. he showed that the court was keeping up with this work. hughes explain that adding more justices would make the court far less efficient. as he put it in his letter, "there would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide." hughes chose not to directly criticize fdr, but to expose the effort for what it was by refuting the efficiency window dressing. and it worked. >> that was a prospectus for anytime and also contemporary perspectives from the fdr era and the court packing history we have learned so much about as

we grow up in this country. we are going to learn more about the biography of charles evans hughes, 1916 republican nominee for president. he failed in that big a very narrowly against woodrow wilson. we're learning more about his contributions to society. we're joined by two guests on this beautiful october night in front of the supreme court building. my first guest served as the u.s. solicitor general, and bernadette is with us throughout this program. she is a professor cornell law school. we're glad to have you. i am going to start because he had two terms on the court. at the time the youngest. in 1930, president hoover appointed him. what is the difference between staying as a justice on the court within a 20-year period?

the comeback is a different person? -- did he come back as a different person? >> he had some incredible experiences in the interim. obviously the presidential run, but also serving as secretary of state, serving on the so-called world court in the hague. he comes back to that job as chief justice, as a man who certainly had many more difference experiences. considerable executive branch experience, all of which i am sure influenced him as a justice. >> can you tell us a bit about the court of 1930? >> sure. the core was much less conservative than it became -- the court was much less conservative than it became in 1935 and 1936. around 1930 when hughes joined in the years directly following that, the court did not really a strike down that much economic legislation. it up held economic legislation in particular.

towards the middle of that decade, it shifted a bit. >> what was he like as a leader in those early days? >> i think he is someone who took to the administrative parts of the chief justice job right away, and that makes sense. you have someone in the modern era becoming chief justice to have mostly served in judicial capacities, but here is someone who has run the state of new york. he is a great administrator. he took to that aspect of the job immediately. he also took to the other aspects of the job. hitting the ground running, because after all, he had already been an associate justice. this is only the second time in the nation's history up to this point or someone who has been an associate justice goes on to serve as chief justice. in that respect, he was the ideal to justice and he hits the ground running. >> was he a great broker of opinion?

was the reliable vote on one side or the other? >> i think from the beginning, he was someone harder to typecast than the other justices on the court. he was coming into a court that was not as bitterly divided as it became, but still a divided court. from his first days, he was essentially near the center of the core. >> this also brings up another point. he loathes to dissent. he wants to create harmony. he wanted to encourage harmony on the court like marshall, chief justice marshall. he rarely wrote the sense. >> let's take a couple calls and then we will delve more deeply into this. welcome to the discussion. >> thank you for taking my call. great program.

was he not considered god-like, too, because he would try to find a medium ground? was roberts pushed by hughes or did hughes follow along? >> thank you for watching. >> i think hughes was much more of the swing vote than roberts was. roberts tended to vote with the conservative bloc. all with the four horsemen. hughes tended to be a little bit more on both sides. at least he signed himself on to more opinions. -- the more liberal opinions. some people think that was a disingenuous move designed to portray himself as being a more liberal orientation than he was. i want to return the one thing you talk about. it was called a jovian presents

-- he was given and jovian presence on the court, and that was about his administrative capability we have been discussing. he held a judicial conference in a pretty authoritarian manner. he would go around and discuss the case after saying his views first. he kept a pretty tight leash on the discussion. >> what we know about his style? -- can we contrast that with what we know of the current justices style? >> i think there are a lot of similarities, and not necessarily the point of the way the conferences were conducted on a day-to-day basis. but the chief justice hughes wrote a book on the supreme court. that was a unique thing to get a window into the supreme court for someone who was already served as an associate justice. at the time he is writing the book or giving the lectures, we

know he is going to be the -- he does not know he is going to be the chief justice. he talks about the role of the chief justice in that book and the limits of what the chief justice can do, because at the end of the day, you are the chief justice of the united states, but you only get one vote and you have to lead in a way that is more subtle than the leadership you have when you're a governor or even secretary of state. he did manage to do a remarkable job of leading the court. especially in the administrative areas or moving into this building, leading by example. >> let's take a minute and talk about this building. up until this time, the court met across the street at the united states capitol building. have the court come to have the run building? -- tell the story of how the court came to have the wrong building. -- their own building. >> they decided they wanted to have their own building. that is symbolic and interesting. if you think about the court, they are in constant contact with the bread centers, and they -- with the legislators,

and they are passing each other in the halls of congress. there is something important symbolically of having a separate judicial building with a separate presence. there were, of course, criticisms. as you can see, this is an ornate and beautiful building. my recollection is it came in under budget, which is remarkable. nonetheless there was some criticism of why they needed to build this marble temple. >> william howard taft who had been president and became chief justice argued that the court needed its own building. he did live to see it. -- he did not live to see it. charles evans hughes was the first chief justice to move in here. i read that this was very controversial at the time. >> i think that was partially because you're talking about justices who are traditionalists. >> and it was the depression.

>> and the depression. it was expensive. the optics of moving in to this beautiful temple. this political dimension. it was a break with tradition. from the modern perspective, it seems like a terrific break, one that was long overdue. >> this patent has a depiction of charles evans hughes. we might be able to get a shot of that significance see how the architects of this building this is harry. >> i used to study the supreme court. i think three major laws were struck down by unanimous supreme court decision. that included the liberals. from what i understood, when roosevelt made his court packing speech, he was one of the most elderly members of the

court. he was over 80 years old. i used to do some work on roberts. the folks on the case in 1937 were taken before in the secret chambers of the court. thank you for letting me be on the show. >> set the stage for us. >> what happened in the -- i want to get back to this caller's questions. fdr became frustrated with the fact that a lot of measures were being struck down by the supreme court. sometimes it by a unanimous

court. >> on what ground? >> on the ground, first of all, the commerce clause. the commerce clause is relevant today. it is also the source of a lot of legislation that is passed right now. under the new deal, the court basically was not as expansive in its interpretation of what the commerce power could do for congress and thought often the states autonomy was being infringed upon by congressional enactments. another ground for invalidation was liberty of contract which was read into the 14th amendment or the fifth amendment. hughes court had been striking down a lot of legislation. after his reelection, fdr

basically proposed this plan whereby the court's membership would be increased if justices did not retire in a timely fashion. under his plan, there would have been up to six new justices placed upon the court. this gets into the question that justice roberts had changed his scheme was promoted. one argument is that once roosevelt won the election, the court felt there would be a lot of pressure to uphold and obstain legislation and they could no longer be striking down as many laws. the court packing scheme itself was almost irrelevant or was not the real catalyst that roberts felt he needed to change his vote because of roosevelts reelection. >> give us a sense of how engaged the country was.

was this a hugely controversial, or was this a washington story? >> this was not a washington story. it helps to understand the stage completely which is, think about fdr at this point. he has just been reelected for a second term. he has been dealing with the great depression. this is the great depression. he is trying to deal with it innovatively, passing this legislation and it is getting struck down by the court. he is also in his second term. fourth term, he will have appointed more supreme court justices that than anyone butat this point, he is like jimmy carter. he has been a full-time president and has not put anybody on the court.

he is very frustrated with the fact they are sort -- there are striking down legislation. he is with the view that they are out of touch with the country. that is the reason the country focuses on this. i think a lot of the frustration goes with what the court is doing, what the age of some of the justices is. all of that boils over into the court packing plant. i think it is fair to say it is a bit of a black eye to fdr's historical legacy that he let his frustrations boil over and made this proposal. >> good afternoon. it is still afternoon here. i appreciate you taking my call. i presume this is a question for professor bernadette meyler. might know regarding the tie-

ins between the justice hughes and the sword family. also, part of the reason i am calling is because i have been puzzling for some time. back in that era there is a speech by justice hughes that was indicating the anti-racists republicans. that seems to have switched wilson's presidency. i am curious what you may know about that. >> i am not as familiar with the relationship. i will have to defer to others say about that. a bout that.

there is a very interesting story. he invited booker t. washington invitation. he escorted him to a table. uniform position on race was in favor of greater equality, and i am not sure what extent to full equality. it is a backdrop to the change were previously republicans had been much more in favor of racial equality and the democrats also sort of took on that mantle. >> returning to the court packing plant, charles evan hughes was how involved in lobbying or setting the stage for it being debated? >> there was as i understand the story, it was something that justice brandeis that was very much in favor of and suggested. the chief justice was direct in the same skillset he brought to

bear in investigating gas companies back in the day. he looked at the court's docket. as chief justice roberts indicated, he took a part a neutral case for what fdr was proposing and really laid bare a more obvious motivation. >> how common in today's relationship between the court and the legislature -- >> it does happen. the chief justice --i don't know if this was the practice back in the day. it has become the practice that basically every year there is essentially a state of the judiciary letter that the chief justice sent over to congress. sometimes it can be pointed. for a number of years, they both made a point of explaining that they were less than happy with the current state of

judicial pay. there continues to be these option going forward. i think that is one of his great contributions. things. at the time. one part of his letter which was also consulted, what part of the letter said hearing the panel system would not be constitutional. it seems like an advisory opinion. hughes had condemned other justices for trying to produce advisory opinions.

>> next call from missouri. >> thank you for taking my call. this is kind of a follow up to the cornell professor comment that roberts aligned himself more with the four horsemen who were the conservative wing of the court. and after the court packing plan,roberts was part of the 9. from what i read,roberts would never admit that. do either one of you know if he did changes voting patterns? >> the only person who knows for sure is justice roberts. i think this is one of the

reasons from an academic standpoint why court packing is so interesting. there are a lot of competing theories that are supported at a detailed level. we don't really know for sure. i think it is fair that if you look at justice roberts' voting record, there does seem to be a fork in the road that go in a different direction. >> he did definitely protest that he was not influenced by politics at all, but it is hard to believe that. >> we talked about the fact that this court opened in 1935 -- it is a beautiful building. he spent a lot of time in that courtroom. is the court room he operated in as chief justice the same today? >> there are some minor differences. there are changes to the size and shape of the bench from time to time over the time.

>> we also have a historic photograph from the supreme court historical society. it was somewhat illicitly taken. it is a photograph from inside the quarter while the court is in session with chief justice hughes presiding. as we are looking at that, you do not see that very often. while we are talking about that, we did not mention it in his biography, and between his first and second service on the court, he was a private practice lawyer much sought after. he argued 50 cases before the court. having had that experience, what were his arguments like in court? >> i think it is a really good point. it is something very similar to

the situation we have now with chief justice roberts. we have somebody in him who argued nearly 40 cases when he was -- before he came onto the bench. chief justice hughes had him beat. i think that was part of the point that was made about the sacrifices he made for public service. he comes to the court as somebody who bought only has appreciation for the job of the court because he has previously served, but he has some sympathy and understanding as the role of counsel as well. i think he is somebody who was willing to ask questions of counsel and also had a real appreciation that kelso had prepared for the argument. they have points that wanted to make. he was ready and willing to listen to council. >> this is tim from pittsburgh. >> i have a question about the circumstances of justice hughes ascending to the court as chief justice in 1930.

i don't know if this story is true so i hope your guests can confirm it. the conventional wisdom after taft had died is that hughes would not agree to serve as chief justice because doing so would mean that his son would have to resign as solicitor general. to everybody's surprise, charles evan hughes sr. decided to take his job and the sun had to be solicitor general. >> i have heard the story. i do not know whether it is true. i heard different versions of the story. he may have a perspective as to the truth of that. i will say this. i think if somebody -- if the president really thought that charles evan hughes would not

take the job and was not interested in being a chief justice, that seems like a naive assumption. hughes had an interest in the job going way back. when he was first put on record as an associate justice, he was appointed with an understanding that he may be elevated very early when there was an opening at that point. he was passed over for chief justice white. president taft was the one who passed him over. i definitely heard the story. it certainly had to be a difficult moment around the family at dinner table since there is no question that chief justice hughes accepting the job meant his son would have to

give up the solicitor general job. i do think it is a little naive to think he was going to turn it down. >> i think some people did think so at the time, but they were probably misled. just one more addendum about the fact that he may have had at versions to the job earlier, there was some possibility that he would be appointed rather than associate justice when he was first appointed to the court. and being passed over i have been one of the reasons he was more willing to take the presidential nomination and not. he ultimately aspire to the chief justiceship. >> next telephone call is from columbus, ohio. hello, mark. the justice is staying on

until they are 80, 90 years old. they don't have a lot in common with the people. they still have the same beliefs than what everybody else has in this country. we ought to be able to vote them in. it might be a little more fair than the way they are in now. they would be more a part of this country. it is like they are gods or something now. >> thank you for your question. he talks about supreme court justice is not knowing much about the rest of us in society. >> i think this is part of what motivated fdr's court packing

plan. part of what he was saying is the older justices had antiquated notions about society that needed to be superseded and that they were two out of touch. i think that is why all of the justices took offense at his plan. >> i think that is right. there have been ideas that maybe we should need term limits, a retirement age, some way of making the justices more responsive were you there limiting the length of which they serve. these are topics that hughes addresses in his book of the supreme court. he is certainly confident that there can be a difficulty. sometimes just to stay on longer than they should. the current system we have is the best system we can have. that is especially when it comes to indicating individual rights, it is a virtue and not a device

that justices are removed from everyday politics. >> there are two very large conference rooms used often for public events. there are portraits of each of the chief justices who have served. we are going to show you the portrait of charles evan hughes that is here inside the court. as we look at that, i would like you, bernadette meyler, to talk about the opinions he offered. >> he did author a number of opinions. one opinion he is significant and i think this not discuss this bailey vs. alabama. this is an opinion he issued early on when he was associate justice. it involved in striking down a peonage lot. even though slavery had been abolished, under the 37 that it

was not clear whether there could be labor in compensation to debt. he struck down a lot that had allowed for peonage and said it was not relevant that the party involved was african american but nobody should be subjected to the requirement of labor for debt. he had an output -- he had a lot of important decisions he offered -- he authored during his time of chief justice. among them were decisions on both sides of the spectrum in terms of striking down economic legislation. one case that was crucial because it signaled his willingness to understand the flexibility that was required by economic legislation early on in his term was the case of home building and loan association. this was a case involving a minnesota mortgage moratorium act. basically, the claim was this violated the state's wisconsin

military not to impair the liability of the contract. chief justice hughes said in this case that basically contracts had to be understood within the context of the public interest. one of the things he kept coming back to was the way in which individual rights had to be maintained. that had to be in the context of the protection of the public interest. >> do you have anything you would like to add? >> i think those are great opinions to highlight. the great thing is, he was the chief justice for a number of years. he wrote more than his fair share of the opinions. they are a opinions we can point to. those are the ones that are pivot points for the switch in time. those are very important opinions. i also think there are some of what i would describe a civil

liberty opinions he wrote. it is now hard to imagine the supreme court of the united states without the first amendment. it is an important a part of their daughter can't. --of their dockett. there is another case that recognizes the freedom of assembly and problems with laws that try to target people for being members of unpopular groups. the court has waxed and waned. in many respects, the decision he wrote was the head of its time. >> hi. i would like to ask your panel, with both charles evan hughes

and fdr being a part of the aristocratic elite, both were progressive governors, one with the judicial route and one what the highest elected office, what kind of report was there between them? i was also wondering if there is any evidence of any cordiality or was fdr regarded by hughes as a traitor to his class? also, i was thinking of this while i was listening to your discussion, was there a point in which hughes realize that even though he was an elected governor, he realized his aristocratic background that he could not aspire to running for president even though he wanted to be president.

i am thinking of the last viceroy of india who had the ability, but because he was from the aristocratic class he had no point -- he had no chance. >> certainly, hughes swore in fdr on several occasions. i think the court packing scheme and the various tensions over the relations between the court and president at that point in time did not really lead to a very amicable friendship between the two men. also, hughes was somewhat reserved in terms of social life in washington, d.c. he and his wife would only

attend a dinner party on saturday night because he felt it would contravene his austere mode of preparing for judicial practice if he actually went out any other time. he was not as much of a figure in the washington social scene as one might imagine. >> the only thing i would add, he really was not from quite the same aristocratic roots as roosevelt's. his up -- was exceptional from an education standpoint. his parents were a remarkable individuals. i don't think it was a use of great luxury or wealth. i think most of the wealthy accomplished over his career accumulated through his own law practice and endeavors. i do think there were differences personality wise and background wise as well. >> the next call is from stockton, california. carol, go ahead, please.

in 1948 or did he retire before time? >> thank you very much. when did he retire from the court? >> 1941. >> exactly. he stepped down when he still had a few years left. i think that was probably something that was not unintentional. he had done his time on the court. he had seen some justices get to the end of their time and have difficulty issues on where they should leave. when he came back to the court even though he had been away for 20 years, justice holmes was still on the bench. one of the things he had to do

was deliver the news to justice holmes that his colleagues on the court had decided that it might be time for him to move on. i think that was one of the most difficult things he probably had to do as chief justice, especially because of the closeness between the two men. i am sure it was one of the most difficult both -- difficult things justice holmes had to do. >> i think that brandeis rejected a lot of hughes' philosophy and was much more liberal. he respected him as an intellect. >> i need to ask you, you have described his formidable intellect. if you could time travel, would you want to argue a case in front of his court? >> i think it would be fascinating. some of the other justices on the court were kind of difficult

personalities from the bench. i am not sure it would be all roses. i think it would be a remarkable experience. obviously, you are talking about not just the opportunity to argue in front of chief justice hughes, but also justice brandeis, some rail lines of intellect. >> today there are about 8000 petitions to be heard. they hear about one out of 100. what was the workload of the court back then? >> it was not that many more cases they were hearing, but the petitions were much lower.

when roosevelt proposed the court packing scheme, there were only 100 something that had been granted. i think that was one of his grounds for complaint against the course they did not have enough energy to hear cases. we have a much greater proportion between cases where there are petitions and granted. >> arguments are generally one hour today. what were they at the time? >> i think there were typically more constrained. in the early days, arguments would go on for days. i also think just to follow up on the very good point that was made, i think one of the stories is that more of their documents have become -- more of their dockets have become discretionary. one of the things chief justice hughes did was move the court into the direction of having greater discretion. that was a potential controversy that they were expressing discretion to not hear some cases. these days it seems quite.

>> we have half an hour left to go in our two our look of "the contenders." it was a close election against woodrow wilson who was vying for his second term. then charles evan hughes went on to serve as chief justice in his second term on the supreme court. he was very much the center of restoring fdr policy court packing scheme. you are on the air. >> i hope you have a happy and healthy baby. i try to catch the show every friday night. my question is -- justice hughes sounds like a man that was for progression. i hear you talking about how he wanted the blacks to step forward.

but what you think about women stepping forward and them being on the court now? what he would think about the wrongdoings that are going on the court today. >> i think that it's a really interesting question about his attitude toward women. we heard earlier he was in favor of women's suffrage. , earlier than other people. i think he was somewhat ambiguous. he was an advocate for a lot more progressive legislation that he was later. some have argued he had a turn more toward the right leader in -- later in his his career. among legislation he was interested in -- interested in at the time was to protect women and children laborers. some opposed those measures because they thought they were

paternalistic. even in his later time on the court and as chief justice, in a sense he used some logic about protecting women against unfair labor practices. not just protecting any labor, but women might need special protection. on the one hand, he was in favor of allowing women more autonomy. on the other hand, he also had a paternalistic view point. >> columbia, tennessee. >> thank you for a wonderful program. i'd like to know the opinion from your panel as to what you believe charles evans hughes might make politically and judicially of what is going on and wall street right now? >> can you project? >> everybody has their own a perspective on what is going on at wall street. i do think charles evan hughes was in some respects one of the great early reformers. if you think about the trajectory of his career, he did not seek out public service for sort of his own sake or

something he really wanted elective office. he came to public service through his law practice and through an opportunity to investigate industries where there was a lot of corruption. i think this is something that was a hallmark of his career. even in his presidential run, it is consistent with the idea that he was not necessarily the world was the best backslapper or do -- knew how to build alliances with people. i think he was very focused on getting rid of corruption. he did not care if a few sacred cows get slaughtered in the process. >> you mention his was one of the first controversial appointments of chief justice. i read as far as the two sides were concerned he would be too pro-business. >> this is a somewhat paradoxical concern. given his earlier term on the court and also his time as governor, he was very reform-

minded. i think of him sometimes as combining teddy roosevelt's reform-minded this as woodrow -- reform-mindedness and woodrow wilson's internationalism. people were very concerned that his time as a private attorney and time in private practice have led him into pro-business alliances that would make him exposed to regulate companies anymore. i think the main issue was the time he had spent in private practice. i think that concern was not really warranted given his earlier career. >> we will take a call from toledo and that we have a clip about charles evan hughes and race. >> thank you for taking my call. this particular question is probably directed toward paul clement. sir, how you feel mr. hughes

would have responded to unelected officials on an international scale, being able to dictate international law as opposed to an elected official who would use the congress to pass particular laws? >> thank you. >> that is a great question. i think chief justice use would have had the ones to use and not -- nuanced views and not something where he would say, you know, he would be hostile to the international organizations. this is somebody who came to the chief justiceship after serving on the international court. he has been sort of an internationalist. in his writings, he has been less critical of the idea that international law is our law. in this book, he specifically says international law is our

law. on the other hand, i think he would ultimately save our own elected officials have the ultimate say over what the scope of our law is. i think he would have a view that congress had a wide scope to embrace international law principles but congress wanted to say that principles of international law did not apply to the united states and that would be the last word. >> i think that is exactly right. he says congress has the last word. international law can fill in gaps in certain respects. i also think he was a head of his time in promoting u.s. involvement in the court of international justice. he was not only a judge on that court, but also he advocated the u.s. adopting jurisdiction of the permanent court. >> we have had a few callers who have asked about charles evan hughes and race. we are going to return to his law firm still existing in new

york city for a story from his autobiography. >> in the charles evan hughes conference center, we try to select things that would reflect important stages of his life. we have collected a number of things including original books that charles evan hughes author. ed. most notably is the autobiography that we find interesting. my favorite story in here is one that justice hughes tells. a visit when he was the president of the baptists society in new york city. he asked to booker t. washington to come and speak to the assembly. when booker t. washington and his wife arrived, justice hughes escorted him to his own table and sat in there. at that time, that was a controversial thing to do. justice hughes took advantage of that to speak about the

importance of diversity and tolerance. he was very disappointed that a group of religious people themselves would be intolerant to having booker t. washington at their table. >> we have about 22 minutes left talking about charles evan hughes. we have brought back one of our first guest who is joining us on the plaza of the supreme court. david pietrusza, one aspect we have not spent much time on his his chair as secretary of state in his pivotal one post world war i years. would you tell us about what contributions he made in that role? >> he is regarded as not only one of the great chief justices, he is regarded as one of the great secretary of state. he is regarded as one of the top three. what he does is he inherits a great mess because of the

failure of the league of nations, he was for the league of it -- he was for the league of nations, for the united states of america that entered the league, but he was not about to hand sovereignty to the league of nations. article 10 said the united states would go to war if we were going to defend boundaries of the messes in europe. he thought that the league could be fixed. he planned to submit a clean bill treaty which could get through the senate when he became secretary of state. that was impossible. warren harding saw this a little quicker than he did. hughes recognized the truth that it was really a fool's errand to go back there.

he moved on from there. he stayed. he talked about resigning. he pioneers an international disarmament in a groundbreaking navy treaty which casts the ratio of 10-10-6 with u.s., u.k., and japan. he scrapped and lot of heavy battleships. this is a good deal for the united states because with our congress, we were not about to spend the money on the military. we would have lost ground to japan in that decade. he also moves on to other treaties in the far east. he gets japan to give back to china which was a major accomplishment. going into that decade, the united kingdom, britain, was united in treaty -- if they were attacked or the other party was attacked, they would go to war. the other party was japan. it was a fear that if we got

embroiled in a controversy with japan, we might have to go to war with britain on that. he broke that treaty very smoothly. one thing he was not successful at was the emigration treaty with japan which was in the 1924 and was the japanese exclusion act. he tried quite hard. he was not able to do that. the senate was a great problem to him. it would be a tossup between that and france. >> this is charlie. you are on the air. >> what a wonderful series and thank goodness for c-span. who was the person in the 1916 election on the republican side that ran against hughes? i had heard that if the other

person had been the nominee, they would have beaten. >> the contenders that year were senator fairbanks who had been a vice president under roosevelt, senator burton of ohio, the conservative candidate -- i would hesitate to say that any number -- any one of those would have run a better race than hughes. i think the deck was stacked -- it was close. if you change any one thing, maybe you do not have a railroad strike that impacted the voting in ohio. you just don't know. i don't know if you could say that anyone stronger candidate. if he had been so strong, he would have won the nomination. >> for all three of our guests,

we will go one at a time. it is time to wrap this conversation up and think about charles evan hughes' legacy. how the world might have been different if he had not been here. what our country might have been like. i am going to take a call, and then i will start with you so i will give you a chance to think about that. >> good evening. i would like to ask the panelists to please explain why the hughes decided to disregard the judicial precedents, particularly the ruling in schechter and carter in order to recognize a fundamental right to organize unions and labor relations. could you please harmonize justice hughes'judicial reasoning?

>> i will give it a try. there is a way to reconcile those feelings. another caller pointed out earlier. it is easy to think about decisions as the same as being 5-4 one way and then 4-5 the other. it is much more complicated than that. every member of the court said there was something wrong with the statue of there. and it leaves lawyers scratching their head. it is the first call the non -- the birth of the non- delegation doctrine. from time to time, lawyers for to fit cases into the not delegation doctrine. that was really eight different -- a different doctrine that was at issue when the wagner act comes before the court. i think what is precedent

setting and does break from the prior decisions in that decision is really the court in the previous decisions had distinguished commerce from production or other forms of economic -- economic activity. it is something that really bedeviled the court. these are really difficult distinctions to drop. -- draw. if you look at 1957 commerce clause, it is this categorical approach that required some very thin and difficult distinctions. i do think in that sense, those decisions were not so satisfying that they were decisions that were not that easy. i think the court essentially and ultimately became persuaded that looking at the commerce clause would not work. >> i think the most important part of hughes'legacy is that basically the hughes courts created the modern commerce

power allowing for the commerce power to be construed broadly. so much of the regulatory system that we are under right now or that we can enjoy really derived from congress's power under the commerce clause. i think that is one of the things that hughes shepherded into court during a difficult time and allow for this outcome to the marriage -- -- to emerge when the power could be more expansive. >> hello, charles. >> i want to thank you for your record of public service. the question i wanted to ask was about chief justice hughes attitude about oral argument. he believed it should be how it is today where they are largely focused on questions or did he have another attitude toward that? >> he had a more balanced use of oral argument, i think.

he understood both the virtues of asking questions and also the virtues of having lawyers have been of -- ample opportunity to explain positions. in a sense we have moved to a different place hysterically or supreme court arguments is dominated by the questions. at that time, justices and in his book, it is almost like they felt the need to explain why it was appropriate for them to ask questions at all. some lawyers had the idea that oral argument was their time. i think he was of the view that it was important for the justices to have an opportunity to ask questions and it was good for the lawyer to have an understanding of what was bothering the justices about their side of the case. >> friend from washington, d.c. -- fred.

welcome to our discussion. >> my question is -- i would like to know if any of the members of the panel can make a comment about the justice's view of that time between church and state court at that time any of their colleagues, what was their view? >> this was a moment in time when the notion of a wall of separation was coming much more prevalent. the hughes courts look at religion more generally. the establishment clause of the first amendment was inc. against the state to the due process called the 14th amendment. there were held to apply it from state to state action.

that allowed for a lot more suits based on violation of religious liberty than previously heard it. -- occurred. >> how about if you take the question about it hughes' legacy? >> i think it is important of how he stopped the court packing scheme, how the regulatory nature of decisions changed. how the but the republican party -- he put the re publican party back together again. i think his legacy is one of service. if he is a man at one time after and after a gain he leaves his normal state of life to serve the country and it does it with remarkable intelligence and integrity. at a time with so much fractured his and our nation, i think it -- fracturedness in our nation, i think it is good to

look back on positive examples and to take hope from them. but i read from one biographer who said he has a constant tug between the legal and political spheres. did you have the same sense with him? >> yes. i think after he left the secretary of stateship, i think someone said he was our first citizens. . i think that is a wonderful thing to say and something true to say about him. again, he made some amazing sacrifices. when he left the state department, he was able to make a peak of $400,000 a year. jobs he had prior to that were in the range of $12,000. part of him leaving was that he knew he had to take care of his family. in between all of those times and even when he was off the court, if you take a look at all the organizations he was involved in including the foundation of the national conference of christians and

jews to advocate tolerance in the mid 1920's, a time when it was often in short supply, the man was a powerhouse, tireless whether he was in public service officially or not. he was always doing the public's work. >> we have 10 minutes left and our program. we have time for a couple more calls. the me ask this in question of you. -- let me ask the same question of you. >> i would say there are two aspects of it. we are still dealing with this issue. he rejected the categorical approach. i am approaching get more from the legal perspective. what has already been touched on is the commerce clause jurisprudence. i think what makes that legacy so interesting is we are still dealing with this issue. chief justice rejected hughes the categorical approach which even he was very quick to add that the commerce clause was not unlimited.

it was a limited power, the framers had enumerated the various powers in the constitution and none of them gave the government's absolute power. he played out the basic framework we are wrestling with and we still have this idea that the commerce clause is broad but it is not unlimited. where the limits are is something we continue to struggle with. the other thing i would really emphasize is the legacy of judicial independence. i do think that the court packing idea was probably the single greatest challenge to judicial independence, at least in the 20th century. i think the way he fought that off is something -- i don't think we will ever see another court packing effort. i think that is a great legacy. i would add in her book about the supreme court, he addressed what were the three worst supreme court decisions that the court had made up to that point. he called them self-inflicted

wounds. one of was a decision called the legal tender -- the legal tender decision. it was for the court first struck down a statue and after changing its membership and it up upholding the statute. he said it was the core's fault for the wayault they handled it. he pointed out it was not president's grants faults. fault.t's he uses the word court packing. he said nobody could accuse grant of packing the court. this was something that was in the back of his mind before he was a chief justice. he sees the threat to the courts and defense it off. -- he fends it off. i think that is a very worthy legacy. >> hi greg, you are on. >> when this chief justice hughes get done been on the court? >> 1941. >> was he the chief justice when komatsu vs come asa was written? -- komatsu was written?

>> no, he was not. "i was just curious. >> he was off the court at that point. >> how do you explain about his final years? he resigned from the court as we just said in 1941 and lives the next five or six years and dies at the age of 86. what were his final years like? >> he is very old when he goes on to the court and very old when he gets off. two years before he gets off the court he gets a real scare. it is almost like a stroke. he recovers. when he leaves the court he is fairly vigorous. what does happen, he returns to new york. his children are up there. he remains in washington, d.c. his marriage was really a close one and very wonderful. at this point, he decided he would make up for lost time.

been away from my wife. she takes still fairly quickly. -- ill. i think by the end of the war she has passed away. it is a very tragic time for him. it is one of the very few times it is recorded that he has lost control of his emotions. it is so painful for him. his health continues fairly strongly until 1948. he goes up to, i believe, cape cod. there he takes a sudden turn for the worse. he passes away. he had a fear to not be like justice cardoso had been helpless toward the end of his life. his wish was granted. his time of infirmity was days if not hours. he passed away with all the dignity which he had lived. >> we have about four minutes

left. we have a clip of him swearing in franklin delano roosevelt. even though they have an epic battle. we have a clip of him. >> do you solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office of president of the united states to the best of your ability to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states so help you god? >> i franklin delano roosevelt do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states. i will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and so help me god. >> charles evan hughes swearing in franklin delano roosevelt. his legacy, especially during

the court packing era, is something we have discussed. i want to go back and talk about the 1916 election. if he had one that and woodrow wilson had not won a second term, how would the world have been different? >> that is a very consequential question. it is hard to reconstruct how it would have been so different in some critical factor had not taken place. wilson was a president to lead us into the entry into world war i and move us forward. i think he is somebody that history regards very well. understanding the character of the person that charles evan hughes was, it is hard for me

to think we would be poorly served during that critical time by somebody who had done some exceptionally well in such a tight. . i think he would be very comfortable in leading us in our foreign affairs. >> what are your thoughts regarding entry into world war i? >> i think the exit from world war i is were the change would have been made. we are talking about the peace process. woodrow wilson boxes that -- btoches that tremendously. what i neglected to mention in his post justiceship years is he is called in to consult on the structure for the do you -- the new united nations. he put some things and and makes it far more workable.

he is a very practical guide. -- guy. he has been interested in world justice and rule of law internationally from an early point. if he had proposed a league of nations, there is a good chance it would have been approved by the united states of america. >> other than your own book, what is one of the best books on this era that you can recommend it? ? >> certainly on hughes, the ii volume biography is a terrific book. that is the book if you want to know an awful lot about mr. hughes. >> he brought a book of his letters i understand it? ? >> it is actually a collection of six different lectures that he gave at columbia university. it is really a unique insight. here is ruminations about the supreme court of the united states from somebody who had been an associate justice and

soon would be the chief justice of the united states but is a candid look of what a lawyer thinks about the supreme court. >> highly readable? >> a very highly readable. it is fascinating how contemporary a lot of the discussion is. >> last question for you. when first-year law students come can, what is the one thing you want them to know about it? >> i want them to know about the time and if he had been political or may not have been and what the consequences are. >> i want to say thank you to our three guests who have been here tonight on our program. from outside the united states supreme court, we appreciate your time with us as we learned about this. period of american history. we are going to close now has restarted with some archival footage from the 1916 campaign. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> but changed political history. our look at the contenders continues next friday. we will be an albany to talk with historians and take your calls about the campaign of a house mess. the series airs every friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern through december 9.

you can see tonight's program again on sunday at a 10:30 a.m. eastern. for more information, go to our website at c-span.org. he will hear appraisals and portions of candid it speeches. it is all as c-span.og. rg. >> next, the state department here is from the proposed keystone pipeline project. in canada speak at a conference. and a foreign policy speech by candidate mitt romney. the state department held its final hearing in washington concerning the keystone pipeline proposal. if approved, it would carry oil from alberta to six states to a point in houston and another

city in texas. the public weighs in on the proposed project. after the review process, the state department has the final say. a decision is expected by the end of the year. this is just over four hours. >> my name is jim steele. i am from the oceans in u.s. by calling us from the state department of economic and business affairs. we are here today to listen to your comments regarding the national interest and determination for the proposed keystone pipeline. committed to a transparent, impartial and rigorous process to determine whether the proposed pipeline project is in the national interest. as part of the national interest

to determination process, the department is following a process that is defined by law an executive order. that includes input from eight federal agencies, experts in subjects, and the public. this evaluation of the application extends beyond environmental impact. it takes into account economic, energy, foreign policy, and other relevant issues. last week, the state department held eight public meetings plus this one today in washington, d.c.. in order to hear as many views as possible. thousands of americans participated. those that did not have the opportunity can submit written comments that will become part of the official record until october 9 at midnight. quayle also met with people representing divergent views

including civil society organizations, native americans, and other interested parties. on behalf of the department, we would like to thank you for joining us at this meeting. we recognize this and -- is an important issue. we value your input. as i said, the purpose is to provide a venue for members of the public to express their views on whether issuing a permit for the proposed pipeline is in the national interest. to focus time and attention and your comments, we will be listening to you rather than answering questions. we appreciate the interest of everyone taking the time to share your perspective. we take your comments seriously and we will consider them carefully. given the interest, it may not be possible for everyone in attendance to speak. if you do not have the

opportunity, you can provide your written comments on the back of the paper you got when you came in. you can leave those comments with us at the back of the room. there is a table over there to collect your comments. or, you can submit your comments by mail, fax, email, or online. we need to have them by midnight on october 9. we understand there are strong views. this meeting provides an opportunity to express your views. we ask you to respect the rules we have established so we can hear from as many of you as possible. we ask that you are fair and respectful to everyone who has come to this meeting to present his or her views. before we began, we would like to describe the role in the permitting process and delay the

ground rules for this meeting. >> good morning. in september 2008, trans canada and keystone pipeline filed an application for a presidential permit for the proposed pipeline. executive order 1337 signed on april 30, 2004, delegates to the department of state the authority to issue a presidential permit for facilities such as the proposed he sound pipeline -- keystone pipeline. in considering a permit, the department and determines whether the crossing is in the u.s. national interest. taking into account environmental and safety concerns as well as energy

security, foreign policy, and a social and economic matters. in addition to the executive order, the department of state determined the cause of of the pipeline -- because of the importance, it should evaluate the possible environmental and safety impact consistent with the national environmental policy act. as a consequence, a state department prepared an environmental impact statement consistent with it to evaluate the proposed pipeline's potential environmental and safety impact. in preparing the environmental impact statement over the past two and a half years, we have conducted a 41 public meetings along the route and in washington, d.c. to gather

public comments and to develop the scope of this statement. on august 26, we released the final statement which addresses the 250,000 comments from the public. the final environmental impact study is one factor to be considered in the review process. it does not represent the final decision on the permit application. now as we move into the national interest determination, the department is compiling an additional information to determine if the pipeline is in the u.s.'s national interest and decide whether or not to grant the permit. this meeting is part of that

effort. >> in order to maximize participation and be fair to all participants, we ask that you abide by these rules. we hope to have the opportunity to listen to everyone who wishes to speak. that may not happen. to make a more lively, we are going to allow -- give you a maximum amount of time to 3 minutes. at the conclusion, you will see a sign that says "thank you" then you should wrap up your comments so that we can hear from as many speakers as possible. again, if you do not have time to finish your comments or if you cannot give your comments during the meeting, please leave written comments at the table for this information law also provides the addresses by mail

or e-mail or fax. we will consider all such commons, whether we hear them orally or get them in written form. speakers will make their comments on a first asserts, first -- first come, first-serve basis. we will call four speakers at a time to make it quicker. we cannot anticipate how long each person is going to speak. it is not possible to say you will be up in one hour. you need to be here paying attention to where we are. when your number is called, we ask that you state your name and affiliation and that you spell your last name for the court reporter. then offer your comments. as you speak, you will be time for your three minutes to interval.

a card will be displayed when you have one minute remaining and again when your time is up. we ask you finish your comments in the allotted time. our comments will be become part of our process of determining this. written comments are accepted until midnight on october 9. the department is here to listen to your comments so they can be considered. this is not a question and answer or information session. we understand there are strong views on this issue when we ask that in fairness to those who choose to speak bailout to do so without interruption. we request the no displays or signs be posted. please be respectful of other

speakers. turn yourself loans off or put them to the silent setting. -- turn your cell phones off or put them to the silent setting. the department of state has not made a decision on this matter. this meeting is part of the process that will contribute to that. thank you for your interest. thank you for coming to this meeting. one more reminder, the fire marshal has noted it would be appreciated if people go ahead and find a seat and sit down and remained seated if possible. most people are doing that. thank you for your interest in coming to this meeting. we would like to start with the first speakers. sara, morah, ethan moss,

jennifer. please. >> my name is hodgdon. i am the director of conservation for the sierra club, the largest environmental grass-roots organization. the sierra club and our members and supporters do not believe the keystone pipeline is in the national interest. working with a diverse and a broad coalition of groups across the united states and canada, we have reviewed the final assessment conducted by the state department. we have looked into the record. we have listened to thousands of community members, farmers and ranchers from across the midwest

and texas all to come to the same conclusion the time and time again. the keystone pipeline is a bad deal for america. the purpose of this pipeline is to deliver profits to an oil company. even canadians have rejected this project. citing the risks it pro -- poses. transcanada is asking ranchers to shoulder the burden so that they can pump their dirty -- through the american heartland. it is not in our interest to ask landowners and business owners to forfeit their property to a foreign company while bearing the risk of toxic oil spills onto farmland and into the drinking water source for millions of americans. the opposition is strong and

continues to grow and for good reason. the pipeline would create more toxic fumes and pollution from the refining process. the risk of a pipeline burst into the drinking water and onto farm on -- farmland is a matter of one. those who live on the route understand what the pipeline would do to their communities. they are opposed. we've heard of nebraska and senators criticized the pipeline and the republican governor of nebraska has asked the president to reject a permit. sierra club members have sent comments to the states department, urging you to reject the permit for this dirty, dangerous, and unnecessary pipeline. investments in renewable energy create more jobs than fossil fuel infrastructure.

those are the types of investments we should be making and promoting. we have the technology to start reducing our dependence on oil. deepening our dependence is not in the national interest. >> thank you to the state department for hosting this. i am a co-director at energy action coalition. we are 200,000 young voters, people across the country, who are in opposition to the expansion of the pipeline and their asking president obama to intervene and deny the permit. we represent 50 organizations, all of whom work with young people. young people are basing the

terrific impact of oil, sand, drilling, and the building of this pipeline. they are sick and dying because of it. we appreciate you say that the state department has not made a decision on this issue but we do not believe you. e-mail's in detail a relationship between transcanada and the state department that suggests they might be collaborating. we think the department of justice needs to intervene. [applause] it has already broken the law in this process. their lobbyists are registered to represent an international pop -- corporation. we would like the department justice to intervene.

transcanada and the state department are lying to the american public by claiming that this is a matter of energy independence when we know that keystone is an export pipeline. a key customer of the pipeline has already detailed and export strategy to its investors. other major stakeholders will benefit from this, including royal dutch shell and the saudi arabian government. this is another project to pump of the profit of the middle east and we should stop making claims that it is anything different. it will not help the american economy. fuel prices will spike in 15 states according to the global labor institute because of a pipeline. beyond that, this is a moral issue for the states department. right now you are faced with a

choice -- will you work with the american people to protect our heartland from pollution to ensure that health-care costs cannot spike, to ensure our future is not compromised, or will you allow the cronyism that is rampant in the department to continue by siding with a big oil, transcanada, and allowing the lives of -- we are asking president obama to intervene and deny the pipeline. [applause] >> my name is ethan nuff. everyday i look for a vision of 100% clean energy economy that will create jobs for my generation which is facing the

largest unemployment since the great depression. make this country a leader ring clean technology that we can export across the world. i stood in line 14 hours to testify today. a month ago i sacrificed my civil liberty to participate in a peaceful sit-in and was arrested. i did it because my future is at stake. the future of my generation rest on a decision today. this pipeline will cut across indigenous lands and to my home state of kansas. i cannot stand it. this is not within the national interest of the united states. one because of the threat of climate change. the leading climate scientists have said that if we print this oil, it will be a game over for the global climate. when the u.s. military itself talks about climate change in the greatest threats to our

national security, even above that of terrorism, we cannot allow this to happen. second, because of the health impact. last year, 14 leaks have already happened because of the impact of people getting sick and dying. i cannot let it happen. because we are being misinformed about the job. a recent study said that the jobs we are promised will come to a figure of 3000. the current estimates do not calculate four factors such as the increase in the job -- gas that we know we will see. in fact, the only local jobs we will see will between the 507 hundred. local communities will bear all of the environmental risks and

get none of the jobs. what we have is a foreign company using foreign materials to pump a foreign oil through america's heartland. we can do better with a homegrown vision of homegrown energy. windmills across united states and creating millions of jobs for my generation. we can do it. we can and our addiction to oil. it starts here. it starts with your decision by coming out against and rejecting the pipeline. [applause] >> thank you. my name is jennifer hosteramn. i am the mayor pleasanton, california.

i along with fellow mayors have started gathering names and the signing on mares in support of saying no to this sturdy pipeline. we are on the ground and we are directly responsible for our constituents, citizens, our americans. my day starts with consoling a family whose son was killed in afghanistan because of our reliance on foreign oil. my day goes on to working with safety, fire, police, insuring the health and safety of my community while addressing pension reform without beating people up. my day continues with making sure the trash gets picked up. at the end of the day, at the grocery store, i have people

point their finger at me and say, what are you doing about this problem? what are you doing? what are you going to do to protect our natural resources? what are you going to do. a in the bayour area? what are you going to do as co- chair of the water council to preserve our drinking water and the water we use to grow our food? that is my job. i will tell you that as of last night, we have 50 mayors who of signed a letter which we will be sending after we get a few hundred more to ask the president of the united states to deny this permit. we have a lot of people who need work. we need to create jobs in this country. the way to do that is by passing

the american jobs act. we need to pour money into infrastructure in this country so that we can put people to work in a good paying, long-term jobs. that is my message. [applause] >> #5. number six, thomas. you can also use this other podium if you wish. whichever one is closer to you. >> my name is deborah whiteplume. i am here today to tell president obama the great white father and the united states of america that we do not want this pipeline in our territory, a

treaty that was ratified by the congress as a binding document of law. we have, under the united nations, the right which requires prior and informed consent before and the desecration of lands can occur. we did not give consent for transcanada to bring this pipeline through our mother earth in our area of this country. this pipeline will cross our water pipeline. the rosebud reservation, these are the only people on mother earth. we have no island or we can send four more people if our people are killed off by this oil contaminating our only drinking water source. this pipeline will across

hundreds of rivers, water, we believe that it is against a mother earth. it is against our sacred water. we cannot have this pipeline in our territory. .e are human beings d we are part of the environment. there is no line separating human beings from the environment. i stand here to ask the great white father to say no to this pipeline and for him to defend our people, our land, our animals and are birds and our plans. say no to this pipeline that is killing the people. this is genocide for the first nation of people. the american people should not have to choose between jobs and wrecking the environment forever. i asked you to remember the words -- it means of my

relations. we are all related on mother earth. we need to stand together because mother earth is crying. when mother earth prize, we fight for her. or she will die and we will die with her. i ask everyone to remember rise up with mother earth and say no to this pipeline. note to death. no, no, no! [applause] >> my name is thomas meyer. i am a sophomore at american university here in washington, d.c. a have with me the signatures of 422 american university students

representing 43 states, the district of columbia, and the virgin islands. they're opposed to the construction of the pipeline. it is not in our national interest. the petition reads, "we oppose the construction of a pipeline and urge the department of state and president obama to denied transcanada a permit for the project. as young people from allthe unio start showing some real climate leadership by recognizing the facts of the tar sands and the keystone xl pipeline. tar sands oil is far dirtier than other types of oil, and the risks involved in transporting it across our country are outweighed only by the global consequences of burning it. police say no to the tar sands and the keystone xl pipeline. thank you.

[applause] >> good morning and thank you for this opportunity. i realize i am in the minority here, but i support the keystone xl pipeline. [booing] [applause] i'm from an indian reservation and indiana were all born 60 years ago. my husband and i have been living here since 1964. i am still an active rancher. i raised longhorn cattle. i still do my own irrigating and i put up my own hate. -- hay.

i was an education for 35 years. the first 20 years i taught on and off the reservation, and the last 15 i was elementary school principal on the reservation. today i am in addition to ranching the director on a cooperative board graf's serve for 13 years, the majority of that time has secretary- treasurer of that board. my husband was a native american, a proud native american. he enlisted in the army when he was barely 17 years old, of course it was not my husband then. he did his basic training in the philippines and he was there when world war ii started. after months of jungle fighting, he was captured on the bataan peninsula on april 9, 1942, and he spent the next 3.5

years and cap attending -- in captivity in japanese prison camp. there were starved, beaten, work as slave labor, they did not even know if anyone knew where they were. but he never lost his fac andith or love for america. this keystone pipeline as a good project for america. this is the america that and bad fought for, believed in, and -- that bud off for, believe in, love. it will provide millions of tax revenues which will help fund education so important to our youth, our society, and our future. the large electrical load step power the homes stations on that -- the pump stations will help stabilize rates for all and that is particularly important

on indian reservations where the poverty rate is so high. i have spent most of my adult life on indian reservations in montana and. i know that native americans for the original environmentalists. they respected the earth, they took only what they needed and wasted nothing. this keystone pipeline -- there are many more safety features built into this one than the ones now in existence and operate within tar safely. >> can you finish up? >> i support this because i have children, grandchildren, more than two dozen great- grandchildren. i cannot support anything that i thought would damage the environment or jeopardize their future. i am a rancher and we are the ultimate conservationist. our life depends the way we look

after the land. i'm a strong and independent woman. >> for the record, your betty campbell. [applause] >> i am ruth caplan, and i am giving my place to mark to talk about the inspection process. >> hello. thanks for allowing me this big. i am a former inspector, a civil engineer, might kke klink. i am affiliated with myself. how's that? [laughter] i wanted someone to know about the quality of the project that

keystone did on the first one in north and south i witnessed several clearing construction errors, are reinforcing rod outside of the structure, i rode all of this up and said it -- sent it on to the main contractor, and a lot of it was covered up. pros and concrete, several times that transcanada came in view the work and said it was ok. it is in the middle of nowhere. if they covered it up and went on. my integrity tells me that we cannot do that. we cannot allow things to be built that are not according to the plans and specifications. the pump station with the largest leak is actually on an island in north dakota. it is surrounded by wetlands.

we watch the destruction of wetlands while we were doing construction, no regard for them, recorded as some are a mental problems. transcanada did nothing. they did not care. then we get to the piping. the piping have all come from china. what about the jobs that were lost in the united states? our steel mills? we need those jobs here. you go to weld on to the pipes and a split in break. and they give us reports that tell us that the pipe is good. the problem is that none of us can read chinese. please, if nothing else, before you decide on this, adopt quality standards. i know you may not have them by now. you think you do, but the nuclear regulatory commission has them. give them a chance to build something that is right, regulated, welding procedures, and maybe just maybe there will

not be 14 leaks in the first year, one of the worst disasters of the pipeline and history. thank you very much. [applause] >> i like to call #9, miss anita a through #12, route unmanned -- robin mann. >> the morning and thank you very much. parlow, withita sustain the globe. thank you very much for allowing me to present my thoughts briefly regarding the and ministrations decision to approve or declined to permit that would allow transcanada the

keystone xl pipeline that would traverse the american heart line from alberta, canada before reaching port arthur, texas on the caucus. the concerns right now or whether this would be in the national interest. i appreciate that you do national interest in a variety of complex was. it would cause many locations and the traditional native americans would ask that every significant decision regarding land or the utilization of natural resources made with consideration of potential impacts for seven generations yet to come. the core issue is whether it is indeed interested united states to approve the permit to allow transcanada to transport 830,000 barrels a day of canadian tar sands. my own perspective to grant the permit is based on two main

concerns. that the decision be made within the context of energy security, and second, that if the favorable decision is made, the administration along with transcanada and other business interests would fully incorporate conditionality links to assure an appropriate range of protection and disaster response capabilities that would support the environment, water, human, and community risks. my own experience in these matters draws from a combination of my advanced degree in corporate social responsibility and my recent work and a variety of locations in the americas, in central asia, and most recently on a bp-related project in the gulf coast with community recovery, particularly in the seafood industry. the bp spill and its ongoing aftermath shows what can happen if this is not done.

1700-mile pipeline could become a problem in the 2012 election, but whatever the outcome, transcanada should be retreated on its own terms. my remarks focus on regulatory and other limitations that the administration should require before issuing a permit. not to say that some of these issues were not discussed, but what we learned after the bp spill was that there was a lot undone, unattended, or insufficient regulatory capability. energy security -- we were told that the pipeline was good for jobs per a dimon waiting in lines made it quite clear that 20% unemployment of one workers counts for something in terms of the determination of whether or not the permit would be issued. but their questions of energy security, whether the tar sands

will be used for domestic consumption. >> can you complete your remarks? >> in a new book, tom friedman noted that the u.s. is becoming a country that transnational corporations hover over then identify with. there are other issues that are significant, leaks and spills, eminent domain, and up to date disaster response capabilities which bring in local communities that might be affected are impacted by any disaster, down.s, or pipeline break an in conclusion, the government must co beyond the call and consider all viewpoints and above all develop a regulatory monitoring and disaster response capability that includes local communities to assure to the extent possible that bp-spill disaster is not waiting in the

wings. thank you. [applause] >> thanks to steve jobs, i have can use.hat ai i have traveled here from montana. i have no stake in the keystone xl pipeline. we traveled here for 22 miles from here to the airport. i am an industry analyst, proud to be in the industry for 22 years. i worked for unocal for 20 of those years. i was there for the santa barbara oil spill. i worked it as plant manager and cleaned up my share of birds. i was not proud of it. i saw the malaise that costas tab -- that caused us to have the iranian oil spill off and no energy policy. this keystone xl pipeline will help us get at least back to the

americas. we have lost in three wars and many complex 150,000 american lives fighting for foreign oil because the exxonmobils and other oil companies i have worked for cannot afford the followed the regulations, to follow the rules that we need to have an order have a clean environment that the american indian, the native americans that you spoke about. transcanada accused of manipulating oil prices -- i am here to tell you that no one oil company can do that. we have the goldman sachses and the others doing quite well and they are making money. we will save money on this pipeline, because who is making all the money right now?

the burlington northern and the santafe. you know who owns that? warren buffett. is he going to make so much money, he would give up his 25% that he has been talking about the president obama? i think that he will. i have a strep through chicago. -- strip for chicago. i love it. is making money and it is good. but this pipeline will make money for us. and the last thing i wanted to say, because my time is not up, how many people here came here in a fossil fuel vehicle? a few hands? before, there were zero people that came and other than a fossil fuel vehicle.

and my time is up by a appreciated. i hope that president obama approves this pipeline now. [booing] >> can we move along please? how like to call mr. steven chu ruffner? please sit down. they're plenty of seats in the back in the fire marshal would appreciate people being seated. >> i am with the sierra club. i'm conservation -- and i'm an opposition of the keystone xl pipeline, not only because it violates positions, but because the proposal is against the

economic interests of americans, specifically as consumers. the oil economists state that building the keystone xl pipeline would increase the fuel cost of u.s. farmers by $2.6 billion in 2013. including crease food costs throughout the u.s. because these costs are passed through to consumers. -- it would increase food costs throughout the u.s. because these costs are passed through to consumers. therefore the building of keystone xl will increase america's costs by $5 billion. the canadian tar sands oils are set to refineries in illinois and oklahoma. these refiner's play -- paid $15 per barrel less than the global rise because the tar sands is in oversupply.

it benefits midwest farmers and consumers. the pipeline is built, the oil will be shipped to refineries in the gulf coast, and from there, the resulting gasoline and diesel will be exported to beat south america, where it will contribute to higher global price. since the canadian oil companies can receive the higher price by exporting, they will reduce the supply to the u.s. market until the u.s. price increases to match the global rise. thus the keystone xl pipeline will decrease the price -- supplied to the u.s. market -- decrease supplied to the u.s. market. they claim that the proposed keystone xl pipeline will reduce dependence on imported oil from on friendly countries and reduce the potential for supply disruptions. this claim is bogus, because the u.s. already has a seven under million barrel -- [booing] >> please let the gentleman speak. thank you. his time is not yet up.

go-ahead. did the u.s. already has a 700 million barrels to change it reserve designed to provide the same protection. it this provides more aliquot protection. this pipeline is the economic interest of u.s. farmers and consumers and should not be approved. economicainst the u interest of u.s. farmers and consumers and should not be approved. it would cost u.s. taxpayers $5 billion a year. that does tend solyndra -- that is 10 solyndras per year, every year. [applause] >> robin mann. thank you for allowing me to testify. as president of the sierra club,

but all this the largest grass- roots environmental an organization, i am here to say that the keystone else i'll pipeline is not in our nation's interest. -- the keystone xl pipeline is not in our nation's interest. i was in montana just after the yellow river oil spill. what i saw was a catastrophe. 25 miles of rivers filed by a 25,000 gallons of toxic crude oil. -- debt piled -- defiled by 25,000 gallons of toxic corridor. -- toxic crude oil. third, out of sight is not out of the ecosystem are unconnected to our health. i saw pasture were the top of the grass looked fine, and on

the stems below, residual oil left there from the flooding conditions, that will poison the land, poison the water, poison all livestock for a very long time for it last week we saw hundreds of americans travel to say no to this pipeline. these people were not paid, not posture around by transcanada. -- bused all around by transcanada. [applause] they took time to understand this complicated project and expose the truth about the dismal safety record of this company. the american people expected that there hearing and were shocked to see their testimony taken by the employees of a firm that specialized in permitting and compliance, whose clients included transcanada mbb bird i'm glad to know that my comments are being heard by a

state official -- by state department officials. the state department has failed to deliver on its responsibility to draft a scientifically robust and federal environmental review. the state department has grossly mismanaged the input process by turning the ball over to a firm aligned with the company proposed in the pipeline. the american people are being asked to shoulder this risks to grant the tar sands industry access to an international shipping port. one of the main companies contacted to purchase the all have indic -- has indicated that it will exported. it is not in our national interest that threaten our plan to supply foreign markets with this 30 oil and benefit the company serving them. the sierra club calls on the department of state to take another look at the proposed pipeline. this time, doing it without the

trans canada contractors and lobbyists in the rule protect honest look at the impact, but that the science and record and listen to the will of the american people. the national interest will be clear. say no to the pipeline. [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, while we appreciate that you appreciate the comments made by the various different speakers, long rounds of applause take time away from listening to those comments. please hold that down. next i like to call ms. daniel .le sims, >> i was born in 1988, the same year that nasa scientists gave

testimony on climate change. how was too young to remember the exxon valdez, too young to understand the frustration with an added states did not practice protocol. from my life i've seen the largest and most destructive hurricanes in history, living to the hottest years and the planet, he -- on the planet. clearly the united states needs to lead. many in my community that are affected by oil pipelines. this keystone xl pipeline is not just an informal issue. already tar sands oil extraction requires moving ancient forest that leaves toxins behind the increases along disease.

the indigenous people could coexist with nature will see their communities destroyed by the pipeline. hit shows that the state department is willing to put the health of its communities at risk for the profit of the oil companies. the american people sense deep in their bones that the federal government can make every effort to end apartheid, and start leaving on climate action. he is because when our country ceases to invest in an unjust energy system that creates expendable people in order to benefit and others. we need to stop investing in technology that poisons our planet. this begins when the u.s. shows the world that we have the determination and the vision to end our addiction to oil all reducing climate change.

since the keystone pipeline has already laid 12 times in 12 months, a new pipeline is not a serious effort to solve the problem. in 2006, saying that america was addicted to the law without at claim for energy independence. we have to meet the challenge. that senator is now our president. it feels the sense of urgency that we feel, and then he has no other choice to make. to be able this support the oligarchy and the oil industry, or to work for the people. we are counting on you to stop this. thank you. >> could morning. my name is erich pica, here

representing our members up and down the pipeline route. i'm here representing the more than 36 curves around this world because this pipeline is a dangerous, deadly, polluting pipeline that will, as jim hansen says, take our planet into it climate chaos. we've not been silent about our opposition to this pipeline. but we want to say that citizens have a fair right to express their opinions purpose secretary clinton and the state department very early on a tip the scales -- tipped the scales in transcanada's favor. she said she was inclined to approve this pipeline, or four comments here today and around the country were heard. that is an unbalanced process. is also shocking to see that interests, a consultant for

transcanada, a business partner, is leading this process. that is tipping the scale. just last week come they got over 3000 pages of information from state of permanent -- state department officials that were coaching, they were rooting for transcanada and the lobbyists that they hired, mainly paul elliott, to get this pipeline approved. and finally, this week, we have filed a lawsuit in nebraska, because the state department is allowing illegal clearing and moving of dangerous species before this process is complete. this is an on balance, unfair process. you've asked the public for questions and i have a few questions for the state department. are these hearings simply a farce? are they a parody of the governing process and parody of the rule of law? why you asking input right now

when it is very clear from foia documents that i will submit for the record so that future generations can read how the state department helped this pipeline get built? your clearing away and making excuses for transcanada. why is the state department allowing this at clearing in nebraska before a permanent -- a permit is approved in the process is done? president obama ran a campaign on cleaning up washington, d.c. and the lobbying process. it is clear that this process is failing his promise and the american people and it is failing the environment and it is failing our need globally to address climate change. this pipeline should and must be

stopped. president obama must take the authority from the state department and make a decision on his own, because that is the only way that we protect this planet, protect the american people, and ensure integrity in this process, which is lacking right now. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> please. >> go ahead. >> my name is susan and i am a landowner and rancher from the san sills and nebraska. [applause] alike to shout out to mom and all the people back ohome. have traveled here to tell you

what that the permit must be denied. it is not a national best interest for anyone except the money hungry, greedy corporation of transcanada. on part of a fourth generation ranch that raises black angus cattle. our way of making a living could go away in seconds and that is why we have not signed are easement contract with transcanada land agents. people here have no idea of what it takes to work in a land of the sand hills of nebraska. it is a seven-day of we job. we're proud of what we do but not everyone can do the work that we do. you have to grow up in this type of atmosphere to stick it out day after day. when a foreign corporation and tells us to lie after lie to get us to sign, it leaves a very sour taste in our mouths. all of us nebraskan is are very concerned about the sand hills

and our water. if they do not take care of both, it could leave the land destitute for anyone to live off of it forever. i do not want tarzan's chemicals in our water. all water table on a ranch is only two feet underground. building this pipeline will be a serious threat to our livelihood in nebraska. we have been threatened with imminent domain so many times, the bad reputation and intense falls promises of transcanada it does not make anyone trust them. -- faults promises of transcanada does not make anyone trust them. -- false promises of canton -- transcanada does not make anyone trust them. now what is an all-out war to battle transcanada and keep them off of our property. if they cannot sell my cattle

are my land, that i cannot shower or drink the greatest tasting water in the world, if there is a leak in the opera, where will i work? president obama, you promised to let the earth he'll look for better ways to lead our future. madam secretary clinton, this is in our nation's worst interest. please for our children's future, deny this permit. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> my name is george. i think i am the one who is out of the corner. i am first nations and i come from canada, i come from the tar sands area. i represent many first nations in canada, and i'm here representing the families who were also living and dying with

very rare and neglected cancers which we suspect are caused from the tar sands. on the former chief of my first nations. we live within an area which is one of the largest freshwater deltas in the world. unfortunately, the tar sands are situated in our traditional homelands. we have been observing many issues of the 40 years of open pit mining of the tar sands. only 3% of the total tar sands deposits have been mined. we still have water quality issues, impact to animals, the birds, to big game, to fish, and more critically we are seeing rare cancers in my community today. we have seen environmental injustice is coming human rights abuses, repeated infringement of our constitutionally protected rights by alberta and third-

party nationals invested in the tar sands. thirst for tar sands and the pipeline will undoubtedly move toward total devastation of our homeland, the water, the animals, the birds, that is, and a contribution to the early death of my people, and and doubtlessly the genocide of my people. we vehemently and categorically reject the approval of this pipeline. for very obvious reasons. and i want to challenge secretary clinton, president obama, who i think has an ethical and moral obligation prior to making this determination of approval to visit the tar sands, to see the tar sands, to hear our people, and to listen many of the

concerns and issues that people have. with that, i'm happy to be here with our indigenous brothers and sisters from both sides of the border to oppose this pipeline. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> how like to call mr. steven anderson, mr. george stanley, mr. randy thompson, and leslie fields. >> i am steve anderson, retired brigadier general, united states army. i was in iraq for 15 months, directly working for general david petreaus. i want to tell you why i believe that this pipeline is against our national best interests and why it is against our military's best interests. [cheers and applause] this pipeline will keep us up addicted to oil. and our addiction to oil gets

soldiers killed. we've lost over a thousand american lives and moving through the battle fields of iraq and afghanistan, and i was the guy running many of those convoys. it wastes billions of dollars. this nation will spend $20 billion this year alone on the fuel and the energy to air- conditioned structures in iraq and afghanistan. that is just for air- conditioning. $20 billion in consideration of the full burden of cost which is $30 a gallon in afghanistan, the most isolated nation in the world. it is hard to get the fuel there. this pipeline will continue to fund our enemies. our enemies are delighting in this pipeline because they know that their wealth will continue to prosper and ours will be drained.

we will continue to spend -- send billions of dollars over to our enemies who are building bombs and trying to kill us. and our soldiers are dying because of it. over 3500 american lives have been lost due to i e d is funded by our oil money. this pipeline will take off the pressure to develop renewable energy. we've heard about that more compellingly already, but we need to continue this development. we need a green economy for veterans like me. this will continue carbon dioxide emissions, which affect climate change, and that leads to instability, and that means is soldiers like me will continue to fight and die. this pipeline will set back the clock 25 years of energy development in this nation. it will delight our enemies. it comes down to a couple of things, folks. carbon the oxide emissions,

clean water, and americans' lives. stop this pipeline. [cheers and applause] >> george stanley, please. >> good morning. to my american brothers and sisters, my name is george stanley. i represent first nation's communities. i come from assembly of first nations. i bring a couple of keynotes to you folks. it has to do with the health, environment, and our species at risk. first and foremost, i want to

bring a strong message from 45 nations that i represent. back in 1971, we had a treaty that say it very clear when they initiated open pit mining, that it was meant for alberta. we never envisioned keystone and so on. today is very concerning four leaders is myself. we bring forward to our canadian counterparts, strong messages that we want some communication, consultation to our first nations that are most impacted.

today you can see tarzan's from outer space. that is how fugitives. -- tar sands from outer space. that is how the huge it is. if someone could come and pay my bills the we afforded to the next generation, they're welcome to come and pay for the period because we're not paid on these health issues. i'm very adamant about percent. we have invested in some of those -- about tar sands. we have invested as some of those. all my brothers and sisters are

wearing orange asserts, come and visit us in alberta. hill be six hours before you get to the tar sands field, you will smell it. how want to bring this message -- i want to bring this message to president obama. some say that he is a chief like myself. let's consider dialogue. their bills are getting higher so they are making comments. american farmers, some agree, disagree. we will not bring you the dirty oil if you do not want it. thank you and good morning. [applause] >> how would call randy

thompson, -- i would like to call randy thompson, you are next. >> i am from nebraska. i am here as the nebraska senator and landowner. all like to thank you for the opportunity to be it -- i would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here. i am proud to be here as a nebraskan. nebraska is a great place to live. it is filled with many hard- working, honest, good people. normally you will never hear us raising much of a fuss and less unofficial makes a poor call at a huskers football game. [laughter] but i notice the change in behavior of my fellow nebraskans, like booing a corporate sponsor at a football game. they were booed so severely that

the athletic director elected to remove the ad from the stadium. the corporate sponsor was transcanada. i have also witnessed something i have never seen before, and that is my fellow nebraskans filling the hearing hauls to make their voices heard. this might bring you to ask a question -- what has got you folks so stirred up in the plains? the short answer is, we feel like we're being thrown under the bus. not for a project in our national interest, but very much for a project that is in the private interests of big oil companies. we feel our legitimate concern

about the sand hills and our great of law gencorp -- ogawalla offer, because of ties to oil companies. we know the value of water to our state and to this great nation. we realize that water, not oil, is the essential ingredient for life. we also understand -- [applause] we also understand that water will become a critical issue for future generations of americans. we can ill afford to waste or contaminate one drop of the water. especially not for the sake of breed. -- greed.

we have difficulty rationalizing how pipeline bringing oil across our country to some unknown destination can be and our national interest. in closing, how like to say this -- history will be the ultimate judge of this project. we are about ready to write that chapter of our history. well our descendants look back and say, thank god our great grandfathers had the foresight to protect the resources that we are not depending upon, or will they say, what were the damned fools thinking about? [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> helical leslie fields, lisa richter.ren, rict mike

>> we appreciate this opportunity to testify. i'm here to simply state this pipeline and, as many of my colleagues and our friends from all over the hemisphere said, is not in the national interest. the analysis of this pipeline is terribly flawed. the state department has failed to conduct an analysis of this. understand the president clinton was resolute in his executive order which still serves of our federal agencies to conduct sadducees for further environmental justice. he emphasizes that of part of every analysis must be the informal of face including human health, economic and social eat eggs, including attacks on minority populations and low-income. the council of environmental

quality also states that the in the process must include an analysis of the risks of relevant help the data as well as multiple exposures. it also requires the department to consider cultural, social, historical, and economic factors that may be exacerbated by this pipeline. this was not done. we're very much appreciative of cynthia, the assisted administration for the office of enforcement at epa, saying that there was not enough evidence that the influx of huge amounts of oil would have no environmental impact. in fact, it is most likely to add another stress to communities party focused on pollution. there has been a systematic failure of the state department throughout this process to give a of view of minority

populations. it is severely flawed and its conclusion. it also is fails to provide sufficient mitigation and fails to identify the most likely process, fails to analogize to surrounding communities by claiming that this pipeline will not change levels of heavy crude refineries. the ies ignores that pipelines do spill. in fact, the transcanada prediction that one line with only spill once but it's still 12 times. that is the result of the hazardous materials. the continued operation without

corrective measures would it hurt life, property, and the environment. despite this, the epa also strongly criticized the analysis because there is not evidence that 800 billion of oil barrels a day when at a big impact. >> could you wrap up? >> the refineries in the communities in port arthur, texas include many companies. we're very disappointed that the secretary has already made a determination of this pipeline and posted. we remember when she was

senator clinton, she instituted and held the first-ever informal hearing in july 2007. we were very encouraged by the end. we believe that she should heed what her spouse, when he was president, said on environmental justice to make sure that the impasse in these communities are protected and hope that this current president will veto this pipeline. >> thank you. [applause] >> less than susteren, i am a doctor on the advisory board for the center of global helped had harbored toward one month ago i was arrested at the white house in protest of the keystone xl pipeline. i am speaking about our health and what we stand to lose. 50 square miles of toxic waste water have been formed from oil

sands operations. these dirty waters are spilling into our watershed. one downstream cancer hot spot, our brothers and sisters there are three times more likely to be stricken with leukemia is and lymphomas. lung cancers are on the rise, and rare cancers, sarcomas, extremely lethal cancers of the soft tissue, by a duck cancers, seven times more frequently diagnosed. two of the substances and these toxic waste waters, the potent carcinogen in st. s link to leukemia and lymphoma developing the tar sands in 2007 alone caused 40,000 pounds of benzene to be dumped in the river.

arsenic once dumped cannot be recaptured. it affects animals in great distance. causes neurological damage, liver damage, cancers to the long, bladder, and also linked to lymphoma. 40 months ago the keystone pipeline spilled 1 million gallons of tar sands near river. what will happen long term? and then there is what happens when we agreed that there, and we're still working with tar sands that produce even more carbon dioxide than traditional fossil fuel. i'm a psychiatrist. i pierce the nile for a living. think about it. where will we be say? how will we feel? the rest of the world will know

how much of the carbon budget we took for ourselves and the destruction that this is caused. we will be pariahs. to the state department, secretary clinton, deny this permit. [cheers and applause] >>, three-time u.s. olympian. i am lifelong athlete and i understand the ability to perform to reach our potential. as a father three young boys, a husband, and a son, i also understand the connection that each of us has or level of health and the quality of life and the environment in which we live. there a few things more fundamental in our importance

than their health. there can be no higher priority than to take every measure possible to ensure that the help of our air, water, and natural resources is taking care of. the question of the development of the tar sands in the construction of the xl pipeline is an opportunity. it is a disaster many levels. the environment is ever just about the environment. given the best science that we know, in the increase should be avoided. tarzan's contain more heavy metals, more carcinogens than traditional oil, 14 times more sulfur, and simply put, we will suffer more respiratory diseases and more cancers.

it threatens sensitive lands and the roads and are of course, 30% of our drinking water. it is unacceptably high. the economy and the national security are two reasons proponents used to support the tar sands. this is a mistake. it is stabilizes the climate and compromises security. this is just shortsighted. if we learned one thing, it is that with one environmental catastrophe economy and social fabric of an entire region can be destroyed as effectively as a

terrorist attack. keystone authorities need to be investing in alternative energy is. we're moving dangerously close to seeing our leadership position in the global clean sector. our and bair met risk and sacrifice in our long- term interest for the sake of a private company. we could save 4 million barrels of oil a day by 2020. that is more that we import. the analysis has the potential to create lasting jobs, significantly bolster national security, and the help of its people. we realize potential if the leaders stop the tar sands. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> the next speakers. we remind you, if you could say your name and give your affiliation. over. turning my time >> my name is deemed hubbard. thea proud member of transport union of america. we represent some 200,000 members and retirees nationwide. our members were and airlines, public transit, on rail, utilities, and universities. we respectfully call on the state department not to recommend approval of a presidential permit for the construction of the keystone xl pipeline. [applause] construction of the pipeline is not in the national interest of

the united states. we share the concerns conveyed by the epa to the state department on two occasions. most recently on june 6. these concerns included the potential impact of the united states ground water resources from pipeline spills. second, a high-level greenblatt -- greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project which will make worse the job- killing component of the climate crisis, and third, the inevitable damage to the health of communities in the united states affected by the increase in refinery emissions. approval would be reckless, given this epa assessment of the environmental risk. from the union perspective, approval would impede our country's critical effort to create the jobs that we need to transition to a more sustainable economy. this is a transition that science tells us we must make immediately in order to prevent

irreversible harm to the climate. to help us make that transition, there is no shortage of water and sewage pipe lines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels in need of emergency repairs, and transportation infrastructure is that needs to be renewed and developed. there are jobs that could be created in energy conservation and upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation, jobs to help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency. it is past time for major new deal-type public investment in infrastructure modernization and repair, energy conservation, and climate protection as a need of -- means of putting people to work and laying the foundation for a more sustainable economic future for the united states. this is just -- [applause] sound science and sound economics. increasing our reliance on

demand sands oil would take us in the opposite direction. -- bitimin sands oil would take as in the opposite direction. >> i am a member of the maryland student climate corrugation and in our corporate in an organic farmer from southern maryland. from a political system, where money buys power, and the people are ignored. a system were a so-called public servant bows to corp., or the long-term well-being of the public trust is ignored in favor of the short-term profits of the already wealthy. it is a flawed system that we cannot fix immediately, but we can take a step in the right direction. you have an opportunity to. disciple and say no to corp. -- to break the cycle and say no to

corporations. you can give the country back to the people who love it dearly. say no to corporate greed and yes the public may. say no to the future of the xl pipeline in yes to a true energy independence. say yes to a clean energy future based on renewables build in this country by american labor, create canterbury jobs. it is not conducive to an energy security and independence. break the political cycle, break the collusion between corporate interest and government decision makers, and build a better and brighter future. >> thank you very much. >> i am president and ceo of the national wildlife federation. it is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization supported by 47 states affiliate's and 4 million members across america.

the keystone xl pipeline is a dangerous and unnecessary project jeopardize in america's conservation heritage, the livelihood of land owners, and oppressive resources upon which many of this country depend. a presidential permit should not be granted. the question being asked is whether this pipeline is in the national interest. the answer is pretty simple. for me as a father and grandfather, spoiling our planet for children's future is not in the national interest. addicting americans did trillions of dollars of expense of canadian oil is not in the national interest. leaving our kids with a superheated planet with a super sized oil spill is not in our national interest. i wonder what national interest means to the american -- to the administration. what we should be doing is for our kids and our grandkids and the world we leave them. i am troubled by what the state department seems to uses as

measuring stick. the e-mail traffic that has been uncovered makes clear the cozy relationship with the corporation pushing this project. secretary clinton pass judgment long ago that this pipeline is a good thing for america without talking to the landowners affected by this project or the first nations people or the experts who know that this is a dangerous pipeline and a terrible idea. it says a lot that she is not here today. i do not think she has ever -- she is meeting with corporate leaders including the corporation that is encouraging investment in this pipeline. keystone xl is a critically important are among all legacy decision for the obama administration. the state department's final impact statement concluded that it would increase americans carbon pollution output, equivalent to adding 4 million new cars to our roads. president obama should be

remembered as the clean carbon president, not change gears and become the dirty fuel president. he needs to step in on this and make a decision based on the evidence and not allow this decision to be made by the secretary of state or anyone at the state department with obvious conflicts of interest. it is the right thing to do for wildlife, for families along the pipeline route, and most especially for our children's future. i personally witnessed tar sands impact in canada, saw the unclaimed sites top about here, the polluted rivers, the destruction of water, and air contamination for the first nations people, and more importantly, for their future. >> we are almost out of time. >> let me conclude by simply saying that this is an important decision for not just america's future but for the future of this world. president obama needs to show

leadership. [cheers and applause] >> i'm from the grand electric cooperative and south dakota. i'm here to voice my support for the keystone xl pipeline. i along with the general managers and board of directors at grand electric believe that the pipeline will enhance the development of our natural resources and our area and ensure the development of u.s. resources. we believe purchasing oil from transcanada is far better than continue to purchase oil from on stable, fund friendly middle east countries. unstable, unfriendly bid list countries.

i believe you've done your job and will place adequate requirements to ensure that the pipeline does not pose a unreasonable risks or exposures. what is the pipeline to for domestic energy production? in january 2011, transcanada closed a successful season which resulted in a long-term commitment of 65,000 barrels of oil per day moved into those pipelines through an on ramp build and baker, montana. those 65,000 barrels a balls will be bumped from a formation within the williston basin north dakota. an on-line newsletter reports on these activities, the north dakota gov. stated that within the next two years, north to do it could be producing as much as 700 barrels of oil per day.

if north dakota does -- 700,000 barrels of oil per day, excuse me. if 25% were moved into the pipeline, we would move possibly 175,000 barrels of north dakota oil down this pipeline everyday. what does this do for south dakota? i will not quote the statistics but i have personally seen the numbers impact in the state of south dakota in terms of increased employment, income, and tax revenue. and it is definitely good for south dakota. it is definitely a step toward energy independence and barrels of oil we do not have to purchase from an unstable middle east country. i respectfully urge you to conclude the review process and approve the presidential permit. thank you. [booing] [applause]

>> now i like to call #27, and no. 28, no. 29, and no. 30. >> i and dave collyer. and start by being very clear about why i am here. it is clearly for the u.s. to decide what is in america's national interest. our interest is in making sure that this decision is based on objective analysis and is up as well informed as possible. i like offer five points for your consideration. first, this is not all about the u.s. -- where will we will be sourced from? canada or elsewhere? in our opinion, you are much better served by sourcing that

increase followed -- increased oil from canada rather than from foreign sources. this is about energy security far north america very canada has the third largest supplies of crude oil. we have the opportunity to significantly grow the volume over the next 10 to 15 years and we would like to do so very we would like to sell it to the united states. third, this is about job creation. the development of the oil sands and the related infrastructure has the potential currently creating tens of thousands of jobs in canada and the united states. we have identified in excess of 24 companies -- 2400 companies that currently supply goods and services to related infrastructure. there's an opportunity to grow that number with the approval this project.

fourth, this is about continuing improvement in environmental protection. we stand by our record in terms of environmental performance. we will continue to improve the performance. while i fully respect the concerns expressed with respect to health impacts on local communities, i must point out that there have been several reputable saielse studies which respects to oil sands and there's been no demonstrated linkage or recognition between the two. [laughter] i also want to highlight a quality analysis developed by an independent expert also concluding that it has no impact -- no detrimental impact on pipelines any different or can be differentiated from other crudes being transported in the u.s.. fifth, this is about a comprehensive regulatory system in canada.

as an industry, we are held to a high standard. [laughter] that is what our government expects and that is what we believe customers in the united states expect. we will continue to be held to that high standard and perform to that higher standard. in closing, in your view, i ask you to consider environmental performance, economic benefits, and energy security and reliability. our view is that we hold up extremely well and we ask you to consider each one of them. [applause] [booing] >> go ahead. >> my name is charles and i am speaking on my own behalf. i am now from virginia, but i

grew up in northern montana within 40 years -- 40 miles of fort morgan, where the keystone xl pipeline is proposed to entered the u.s. i believe the keystone xl is in our country's national interest. it will improve our national security, contribute to a long- term stable energy supply for the united states, and create jobs. the pipeline will provide oil to refineries along the texas gulf coast and we -- reducing our oil dependence on on reliable sources. -- on unreliable sources. the pipeline is expected to create thousands of u.s. jobs in the near term as well as

provide billions in tax revenue in the corridor states. keystone xl will join thousands of miles of pipeline already working efficiently and productively in the u.s.. i can. [applause] -- thank you. [applause] >> i am doug harvey. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of myself as a resident of montana and as the manager of central montana a lecture cooperative -- central montana electrical cooperative. hollen not " the statistics on the tens of thousands of jobs created -- i will not quote the statistics on the tens of

thousand jobs created. this is not just about canadian oil. the on ramps in the baker area, many thousands of barrels of oil a day, look away to get that oil to market and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. if we can do -- decrease our usage through less usage, that is great. we still need more -- less imports. let the imports come from a friendly nation, one that supports this, not ones that wants to see the demise of our society. energy prices go up, the economy goes down, and jobs are lost when energy prices go up. we have seen that in our area. it is the fact that low-cost energy has attracted many industries to the pacific northwest.

from the standpoint of jobs, having affordable energy is critical to maintain the economy and not lose jobs. on the local level, most of our educational funding is from property tax, and that tax bases would create a tremendous boost, not only funding university systems but also the state and local schools and help the people for what they are doing. and it is properly educating our country. in education, it is a never- ending issue. bottom line -- tankers bringing oil from other countries as an and far more onerous, but they do not pay for our local schools. the pipeline will absolutely helpful local schools and governments that goes through. we have hundreds of easements in our community.

it's interesting that we find our unsupportive people are in montana from people who have may never been there. and my very last point, i am no expert to see what bring self- esteem to a person to be a good member of their family. but i've seen people appeared to have high self-esteem and our wonderful, productive members of society, who lose a job, lose their self-esteem, and are no longer protected to society. a weak economy kids these problems all over the place. i want my daughters and grandchildren to have good jobs. >> thank you very much. [applause] now like to call -- now i would

like to call the next speaker. >> i am representing a group advocating for social and economic justice. i also represent the international interface the power and light. both of these organizations oppose granting the permit. the find a private morley indefensible. it will lead to a massive expansion of the -- we find the project morally indefensible. it is a dangerous move. our long addiction to fossil fuels have put us on the cusp of a radical and unchangeable effects to the atmosphere. we of st. glaciers melt and, sea levels rising, -- we have seen

glacier's melting, sea levels rising, drought, millions of people displaced, rapid loss of biodiversity, the survival of billions of people at stake. as much as half of the earth's species are being wiped out by the end of the century. there is another reason why tar sands pipelines are morally inexcusable. it will threaten what of the largest aquifers in our continent and imperil the lives of the people that depend on it. also, the poor, the vulnerable, and the voiceless the bearing the brunt of the global climate change, greatly intensified by this full-scale tar sands operations. as many as 600 million people

could face under all over the world. approving the keystone xl project will give but deford struggle for food and survival. the franciscan tradition holds of the sacredness of all life, with profound meaning. there is a common origin and destiny. we teach that human families can find true peace and security only when it looks to his brothers and sisters in harmony with the earth. the keystone xl pipeline -- the common good of all god's creation. the keystone pipeline is being framed as a solution to america's energy needs and spurring job creation.

it is a dangerous rise. -- mirage. >> i would invite you to bring your comments to the table. >> i urge the state department and president obama to deny a permit for the tar sands pipeline. it would be devastating for life on the planet, for the people, and the economy. this is a moral and it is not in the national interest of the united states -- this is immoral and it is not in the national interest of the united states. >> no. 31, no. 32, no. 33, and no. 34. >> buenas diaz.

thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing. i am a christian minister and the united church of christ. i come here not only as a clergyperson, but as of former scientist, a bird watcher, and someone who passionately loved scots blessed creation. i also come on behalf of the many children who might dearly love. e'sant them to enjoy naturi create a border as i have, in all the glory and beauty they got made. nine nobel peace laureates wrote that the night to are nominated for president, you told the world that under your leadership, the rights of the

rigid the rise of the ocean will begin the slow and the plant would begin to heal. if the president consents to the keystone pipeline, he will break not only has promised but the heart of millions as well. when i studied moral theology or christian ethics, we were taught to look at issues through several criteria and different lenses. i can assure you that this issue as the father just explained so well fails at every angle and under every criteria. how can the destruction of the forest, belongs of north america, for the sake of profit be ethical? how can we justify the birds that nest in that forest to extension, which will surely happen because so many of them are already threatened, or

endangering the source of drinking water for millions of people? or endorsing an extraction process that processes high levels of greenhouse gas pollution and leaves behind enormous deposits of toxic waste permeated by the stench of corporate greed this is not moral, this is not ethical. this is not who we are. as a nation, we like to think of ourselves as a high moral ground people. approving this pipeline will surely question our perception of ourselves. of julys year's fourth weekend, as well as exxonmobil -- and exxonmobil pipeline broke spilling crude over 10

miles of the waterway. what was an oil pipeline doing beneath the yellowstone river? i frantically ask and never find out. >> on fortunately our time is limited. i like to finish the sentence. >> it breaks my heart, because study after study sponsored by my church, the united church of christ, tells me that the waste of all toxic developments, it usually winds up an african- american, latino, and native american communities. do not allow a false sense of game to divide the people of color on this issue. we all stand to lose. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> i'm from hastings, nebraska. i stand here today with the daughter of our rancher who you will allow me to split my time with. we are the pipeline fighters. we are the sand hills mothers. we are the of a for lovers. we are begging you to deny the pipeline permit. every day we fight and ask our elected officials to stand up for us. to do the right thing and change the path of this pipeline. it is going through the most fragile part of our state, the sand hills. it is going near the offer which provides drinking water for not

only our state, but for the very food we eat every day. we are backing --begging, do not stand for the foreign oil corporations. stand with american spirit stand with the brass since -- stan with americans. stand with nebraskans. please deny this permit. >> hello, my name is laurie. i live on my ranch south of stuart, nebraska. for many of the people here, home is a place where you go to be say. it is where you can be yourself , and have a foreign company come in and take that away for you, you live and you work so hard just to make it through. and they tried to take it away, it really hurts.

those of you that laugh and boo, it hurts said it can do that. i know everybody works hard. i do the best that i can to work and make a living for myself. i pay my phone bill, i pay for everything, and i work for that. wayshere's so many other and jobs that we can do. the pipeline is just going to hurt america and cause health problems. i do not want to have to deal with it. i urge the president and hillary clinton not put this pipeline and. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> we will submit this to secretary clinton and president obama to join us to be lightly -- pipeline fighters.

we are counting on you. [applause] >> could evening. good evening. i'm concerned about the country and the world my knees with one parent. after hearing the stories that people have suffered and citing development as well as the fact that nasa scientists have caused development came over for the climate, i knew that i had to take a stand. along with other people, i was arrested outside the white house last month for what president obama -- i want him to say no to this pipeline. i've traveled to ottawa last week to support our friends in

canada fighting keystone xl ended dirty, dangerous development. there is a lot at stake today. we have a great opportunity to change the path of we have been on very approving the keystone xl pipeline would perpetuate the broken system in which corporations extract well from the people in the year. profit is prioritized over people. .

. .

that money stays there forever. it will be a tremendous boost to our education institutions in our state and all the states along the route. [laughter] -- [applause] >> my name is daniel gallagher. i am the green party chairman of lancaster county. i represent 900 or so of those in the county. i speak for a thousand of so -- or so in the state of pennsylvania. i would say all of the greens

would deny this. we would like to ask the panel denied a permit. one of the advantage to going last is see the interaction in the room. i had some statements that others have covered. we have a manufactured complex in this room. we have a complex that -- 2 [applause] a conflict that corporations are in cahoots with our government. let's get the people who are working and doing a great job for our country and labor unions against the people who are thinking about our environment and sustainability. we are the same people. [applause] once we realize that and once we

work together, i think we come out of this ahead of the game. my advice for the labor side or the environmental side, i thought we should consider a more of the source. where is your information coming from? don't accept the claim just because they sound good. environmentalists tend to think we are always right. we have to except that sometimes we are wrong. there are situations and environments where people need a job. we all need a job. this is a manufacturing a conflict. from there, others have stated their points well. i think there is a term have

come across that expresses this concept that i have not yet heard and that is corporate socialism. i think this pipeline is supporting corporate socialism or the corporations are able to privatize the profit. they are able to take something that should be a common good, oil, and take that for their private profits and then have the cost of that activity, pollution, carbon, be borne by those citizens in those areas. you have privatized profits and i do not think that is a good situation. [applause] >> my name is albert gonzales.

i am the national commander of a veterans' organization. a lot of people have stood up here and thinks the panel for allowing them to speak. i would like to change that and i think the men and women that wore the uniform that allowed democracy to actually work. we have individuals on both sides of the issue to be able to come and express their opinion. we able -- be able to reach a unified opinion? maybe never. i would ask you to go back to china when they were building the dams on the rivers there. did they have an opportunity to have public access to our government officials to oppose their views or give their

opposition? i do not think so. because the men and women that were the uniform and, if gibbs is this great democracy. i want to thank those men and women that served and those that are serving today. [applause] i am not to going to argue with the general but i think that energy is vital to the country's defense. it is an important part of our diverse economy. our continued dependence on oil from venezuela has increased energy costs and volatility. , contributing to high prices at the fuel pumps. the u.s. department of energy, another one of our government agencies that people will argue these numbers are not correct, estimates said the north

american delivers will allow us to reduce imports from these regions by up to 40%. i see my sign is almost up. our nation's veterans deserve nothing less than good jobs in good business opportunities. they are now at a disadvantage that keystone will help london's -- solved. unemployment rates are higher than those of the general population. keystone will provide sufficient jobs and other economic opportunities for those that had put the -- their lives on the line as well as americans in general. we understand the department of state faces a question whether it is of a natural interest. i say it is also a national security. reducing dependency the did not

share our values, increasing energy and launching a a jobs machine will provide plenty of jobs for our young men and women that are returning from harm's way. [applause] >> jerry lee miller. i am from lancaster, pennsylvania. love, it is a four letter word. i hope you are okay with my using it. i have been taught to love my neighbor as myself. in 30 years as a pastor, i made the principle of the neighbor love the heart of my ethical message. i do not know if you consider it as a basis for our national interest, but i think you will be persuaded. i have visited thousands of hospitals where people went for treatment. people like you and me, subject

to bodily breakdown, i have also conducted hundreds of funerals for people whose earthly lives ended as of human life does. i have seen that each illness, and each injury, and these debt impacts other people. those who love and those who love them. uni suffer as individuals but are suffering causes others to suffer as well. it is good we are connected in this way. because we are connected, we do not want to inflict suffering on others to. we also realize it is undesirable for some of us to profit at the expense of others suffering. this brand of profiteering is the opposite of a neighbor love. we agree it is plain wrong. love says, this is injustice. i am sure you know about the

amount of money a few corporations and investors stand to make from this pipeline. so do the citizens occupying wall street, freedom plaza, and a host of other locations. they are now in the streets crying for justice and seeking a country governed by a neighbor love rather than money left. -- love. [applause] love says people over profits. i am sure you know about the suffering of people in alberta where the scene diseases skyrocket since they began their toxic extraction process. love says no more poisoning innocent people. [applause] i am sure you know the acceleration of climate change from oil use will reap untold suffering upon the people of our

nation. the number of billion dollar weather disasters in the u.s. such as flooding, fires, and tornadoes are unprecedented. love says, stop climate change what you can. -- while you can. the likelihood of a spill over the heartland threatens the freshwater drinking supply for 20 million people. love says, find a better way. [applause] >> we can have one more speaker. 71.

>> she gave for time to me. my name is anthony swift. i am from a fourth generation family in the oil business from texas. i know i speak from that family when i say presented the choice between safety and saving money, safety always comes first. however, when presented with that same choice, it appears a transcanada has chosen to save money. president obama told the american people that his administration would do the necessary science to ensure that keystone xl would be operated safely. they have not yet followed up on that promise. early in the assessment, the state department promised congress that its environmental

review would include a study of pipeline safety by regulators in the department of transportation. no study has ever been done. transcanada claims 50 conditions will address the risks. however, an analysis of those conditions shows that all but 12 reiterate safety standards that are already required. recently released e-mails between transcanada and the state department confirmed that these conditions arm only man for a permit that would allow them to operate its higher pressures and a minimum safety standards. transcanada agreed to a similar set of conditions for its keystone pipeline, describing the system as one that would meet or exceed world-class safety standards. in the first year of operation, its pipeline had 14 leagues in the united states, spilling

22,000 gallons. that was last than the oil from our cars in a year. everyone would take that wager. [applause] the first major -- has demonstrated that spills present significant challenges. in addition to the increase in frequency and assessment of its physical properties, it will be have differently than crude when spill. the experience -- shows that cleaning these presents significant new challenges that haven't been surmounted. after it spilled into the kalamazoo watershed, the environmental protection agency

said a two month deadline for completing the cleanup. 14 months later, it has missed its second deadline. the obama administration -- >> i was going to ask you if you could have the final sentence. >> the obama administration has not done the science as to what these pipelines post. moving forward without due diligence but the communities and resources at unnecessary risk. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i regret that the time has passed so quickly and we have not had a chance to hear from all of you. we welcome your comments. you have your forms, fax, they will accept them at the back table.

i also want to say that it was a privilege to be here and hear all of these opinions down in a very excellent way. it is a great example of democracy thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

the >> candidates to speak at a conference. then, a policy speech by mitt romney. at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on the "washington journal." >> conservative leaders and republican candidates are in washington this weekend for the values voter summit. several candidates spoke to the group on friday. we will hear from newt steel grids, herman cain, and repairing. -- rick perry. your here at a historic moment. this is the first time in history that to george and seven back-to-back talking to an audience. [laughter] by was comparing notes with hermann offstage. the elite media said this is a

two-person race. herman and i decided it that may be right but they have the wrong to people. -- two people. [applause] the guys who had the most -- that might mean maybe there's more to politics than fund- raising and consultants and maybe having a heart and a brain matters a lot. [applause] i think we are in a period of enormous challenge. i think that part of the challenges of barack obama but i thinking it is deeper. we have bureaucracies that are out of control and judges that do not understand the constitutions and teachers that

do not believe in history. and economic class that is alienated and a elite media which has no understanding of the origins of a united states and the nature of american civilization. we have a lot of work to do. i released a 21st century contract with america. it outlines the scale of change, a legislative program and a first day program of very specific executive orders. imagine about 3:45 on inauguration day, we said goodbye to folks. we start signing between 5200 specific orders to move the government away from obama and back toward the american tradition. [applause]

you can go to my website and you will see a section, we will release all of the executive orders by october 1 next year. if the president -- he can sign that. [laughter] but, but i can tell you what the first one will be. about ther o'clock, time that president obama gets to andrews air force base to go back to chicago, [applause] i will sign executive order no. 1 which will abolish every white house czar. [applause]

i wanted this to come today to talk about a historic crisis related to the president. abraham lincoln said, if you debate somebody who does not agree that two plus two equals four, you probably cannot win the argument because facts make no difference. i want to start with that example. imagine that by a 5-4 vote, the supreme court decided that two plus two equals five. under the current theory, which the warren court promulgated, the only effective recourse would be to get a future supreme court to reverse a or to pass an amendment declaring that two plus two equals four. i want you to think about the

absurdity of this. do you believe that five appointed lawyers and the rest of us would change our school textbooks, change our accounting systems? maybe that could explain obama's budgeting system. this is absurd. it cannot be true. that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution and elaborate, complex process of amending the constitution. and said if the supreme court is split between liberals and conservatives, and justice kennedy gets up in the morning, he becomes a one-person constitutional convention. if he feels liberal, it must be liberal ct this is an absurdity. foisted on us by a historically.

there is no judicial supremacy. it does not exist in the american constitution. [applause] let me be clear, judicial supremacy is factually wrong. it is morally wrong and it is an affront to the american system of self-government. [applause] one of the major reasons that i am running for president of the united states is the decision in 2002 that one nation, under god, was unconstitutional. that decision have the same effect that the dread scott decision extending slavery to the country had on american -- abraham lincoln. i thought that an appeals court

should be so out of touch with america that it could seek to block children from saying one nation under god that we had come to a point when we needed a constitutional crisis to reassert the legislative and executive branch prerogative to teach the judiciary that they cannot be anti-american and expect us to tolerate them changing our society by judicial dictate. [applause] what i'm saying to you is in the tradition of the revolution. read the declaration of independence, a large number of charges against britain involves dictatorial judges. the founding fathers distrusted judges and thought that the lawyer class was dangerous and that you could not give them

unbridled power or they would undermine and destroy free society. this is not some marginal position. thomas jefferson said it is an absurdity. that would be an oligarchy. we are faced at a crossroads. if it judges think they are not challenge of all, they are corrupted. corrupted in a moral sense. in a sense of arrogance, imposing on the rest of us whether it is one judge in california deciding he knows more than 8 million californians about the definition of marriage, whether it is a judge in san antonio that not only can school children not say a prayer at their graduation, they can i use the word benediction,

invocation, god, if they do any of these things, he will lock up their superintended. the idea of an american judge becoming a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation of our constitution that that judge should be removed from office summarily. [applause] we were warned in the 19th century that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the courts approve it. with each passing decade, the judges will become more hostile to the american tradition. they talk about using foreign

sources of information because the constitution is so old and antiquated. the justice who believes that should not be serving on the american benched. [applause] we have a lengthy paper and the work of years of efforts by a number of guests edited by vince haley which republished this afternoon. it outlines how fundamentally, ignorantly anti-american the current traditional model is a that is taught in virtually every law school to read it is profoundly wrong. one of the major impediments to democracy today is the behavior of the law schools which teach a usurpation of power in a way that is unsustainable.