regulatory affairs at the department of labor. i am speaking to you right now in my individual and personal capacity and as a professional on leave, not in my government capacity, and so nothing that i might say should be a reflection first thing i would like to say is we need to get in a position where we stop asking. [applause] as the panelists have said, this was not a confusing situation. why are people acting like we don't know what happened. we know exactly what happened. why? because it has happened so many

times before. so let's not be confused and let's not people who say this is a confusing situation, cloud what's going on. let me step back for a second. i jumped into it. and i want to start with a personal story like everybody else did. i have a five-year-old daughter and it's strange how god works things out. it was a cooler day today, i put her in a sweater and i put another jacket on top of her because the weather has changed. as we were getting into the car and she said mommy, does this have a hood? [laughter] >> i said, baby, no, it doesn't have a hood.

[sighing] >> let me tell another story, i was in the kindergarten in the 1970's in texas. my parents tried to send me to the neighborhood kindergarten because of the color of my skin. do i look that old? so what i would like to do is lay out four general steps and i probably have four minutes now. i would like to lay out four general steps of what i think what we should start thinking about and doing and if we have more time, we can talk about expanding more later. the first is justice for tray von martin. people all over the country and

the world have been working to get justice. we need to continue to do that. but as a panelist has said, martin is just one child. so regardless of what happens in this particular situation, he is just a symbol of what happens all of the time. [applause] >> all over the country. and in some ways probably in other countries in the world. so step two is that we need to begin working on the criminalization and i'm using that in a broadway, of people of color, nationally and internationally. so that we get to a place where we stop asking. we have been asking in many

different ways for a long time. if we remain in that position and my scholarship talks about this a little bit, we will continue to cycle. it's like an abusive relationship. times where the abuser apologizing to you for putting you in the hospital last week, but guess what? a week, month later, he will put you back in the hospital and he is going to promise that that is going to be the last time. but guess what? as soon as you heal up, you are going to find yourself back in that similar situation. at some point you will either die or make the choice to stay in that abusive situation or make the choice to leave. and people of color need to make the choice to leave.

and i'm going to give you a couple of more minutes and get in a little controversy with some people on the panel but i'm going to get into it. step two, we need to get ready. if justice does not come in the trayvon martin case we need to prepare now for nonviolent constructive movement forward. i don't know what's going to happen but we have seen what is happening in the past and it does president make any sense. we not need to let that become violent. it doesn't help us. we get hurt. our neighborhoods get torn up and nothing constructive happens. we need to let the message go

out that it's going to be nonviolent and going to be constructive because he are moving out to a different place. step number three is we need to deal with the criminalization of people of color. as the panelists have laid out all of the indicators. somebody needs to come out and say this comes from slavery. nobody wants to talk about that anymore. we want to say nobody likes talking about it, but it was never repaired. [applause] >> we can't forget about it. it's not -- an it's not just black people, but native americans but some immigrant populations coming in. they have their different stories. but you have to repair the thing. so what you get is disparities

in health, disparities in incarceration, disparities in education, disparities in economic access. it's all of it. it is dysfunctional. but it is system attic. so here's step three. step three is progressive economic and political collaboration. it's not a black thing anymore. we can't limit it. feas got to be across the scope. we need to pick out the factors that we want to address first, whether it is the incarceration, education, is what i would suggest, but let's study and pick out some, let's go into the jurisdictions that have the worst evidence of that and do massive voter registration. let's do massive coalition

against massive organizations and pool our money across races and stop asking. [applause] >> we have the capacity. let's stop asking and let's start telling and start a new generation, telling folks. we have our president in power. it's not necessarily him that we are speaking to. we need to identify the local targets of who we are talking to. and here's the fourth step and where i'm going to get in trouble. [laughter] >> we have to step out of this cycle of abuse and stop wondering why we keep finding ourselves in the same situation. we are not in a post-racial world. [applause] >> but we have to imagine it. that's why -- got quiet.

we have to imagine what the world looks like if it's not directed by the system, the paradigm that slavery created. slavery created this racial paradigm. we have been living in this racial paradigm, this color paradigm. is this all that we have to work with? is there nothing else that we can imagine? ok. i'm going to sit down. i was doing good before i got there. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, professor. before we go to our last presenter, let me say a couple

of things because we are going to take some questions and answers and i also want to say the politics panel and also the national director of the national economic advisers, all of that will be happening in this room as soon as we wrap up here. so -- what do they call that a station announcement. as i look out, i want to recognize, one of our board members is here in the room with us, dr. david jefferson senior, senior pastor of metropolitan baptist church in new jersey and also a practicing and licensed attorney in the state of new jersey, so we welcome here today. he has a special litigation going on, for those of you who don't know dr. jefferson. let me bring glen martin.

he is the vice president of development, public affairs for the fortune society. [applause] >> good morning. as soon as i walked in the room and said as long as i don't go last, i'm ok. i'm going to be to the point. i would like to thank michael to the introduction and the national action network for not just talking about these issues pu putting soldiers on the ground to deal with this important issue because this is the civil rights issue of our day and our children and grandchildren will be the ones who issued the ultimate indictment of our generation if we don't deal with this issue. earlier, michael said we have a panel of attorneys. i'm not an attorney.

and there are too many cameras in the room to start playing one now, but i will tell you who i am. i have been an advocate on these issues for over 15 years now and drafted legislation to remove the collateral consequences that we talked about today to remove barriers to employment, voting and education and people with criminal records. i currently serve as an executive in the re-entry agencies. we have been 44 years, working to help large numbers of women and men coming home from prison. i served six years in prison in new york state before i started doing this work. as i think about these issues, the first thing i would like to say, if you care about social

justice, prisons are the belly of the beast. and before we start talking about people with criminal records and how folks get criminalized, let remember one thing, if the majority of people who are committing crimes are ending up in prison are from color and returning to very specific communities, those are the communities diss proportionately impacted by victimization. [applause] >> and when we think of what a victim looks like, we rarely envision a young man but if you go to the statistics, that is the most prevalent victim of violent crimes in the united states. i have yet to meet a victimizer. and until as a country we put value behind every life that we lose, we are going to continue

to have people that are victims of crime to becoming victimizers. i would like to give some applause to the current administration. i think attorney general holder talked about his level cabinet initiative that brings together members of the president's cabinet to discuss with the large numbers of people coming home from prison, 700,000 this year alone. i would like to give applause to congress for passing the second chance act to create resources to doing the sort of work, re-entry-related work. however, stated earlier, the problem is so much larger. 5% of the world's population, 25% of the world's population, 2.3 million people in prison,

some people under criminal supervision. our war on crime has been a failure and a war on poor people and people on color. our broken windows has led to broken families and stop and frisk policies like the one in new york city where we stopped 684,000 people last year, that is not a policing strategy but a war-zone strategy. but re-entry programs are not enough and they are important. but not enough. if you pleve we are going to solve this problem you might as well build hospital rooms to get rid of cancer. we need to travel upstream.

for every man and woman, there are hundreds of others who go right back into the system. a system that has a failure rate of 2/3 of over three years. 700,000 people coming home, 2/3 of them are going to go back according to the bureau of justice statistics. i don't know if any other is allowed to operate. $64 billion plus we are spending this year just on prisons alone. so it's not just about incarceration but more than incarceration and a couple of people mentioned it, but the lifetime punishment and we haven't been locking people up at this rate forever. if you look at the time line, it has been ini can't remember until the end of the civil rights era. we started locking up lorge numbers of people and if you

look at the data, large numbers of black men and large black women and latino. if you have have a criminal record you cannot vote or work here. all the things we worked hard for during the civil rights era, equality, employment, education, enfranchisement have all been taken away. the criminal record is a clear surrogate for race-based discrimination. [applause] so a couple of thoughts. and one is on the zimmerman case. i'm speaking as an individual and not representing the fortune society on these statements. you know, we are working hard to

bring zimmerman to justice and we should be working hard. i want to remind the audience, zimmerman represents the disease that has never gone into remission in america. a young black man in a hoodey, that's how a law enforcement officer approaches young black men and the very system that we are asking to prosecute him has proven itself has been raceist in its politics of the law. and then trayvon martin and he is not the only one. there are millions of others like him. i see it every day. i live in harlem. one of the committees affected by this issue, i look at officers issuing tickets for

illegally congregate. and when i walk into my building they say hello and they want to ask me where do you get that car from. there are millions of trayvon martins and they are doing life in prison on the installment plan. when i was in prison in new york state doing six years, i remember two stories, both of them involved correction officers. this looked at the grades and said, you are amazing, you should go to college and he ended up in a facility that had one college. that is one story about how one story can turn around the trajectory. the other one was a correctional officer on the way out. and he was asking my questions what am i go go to do he said

something at the end of that conversation that realy struck me. and i don't want to sque this up. he said you helped me buy my boat and when my son gets here will help my son buy his boat. i said this is not just about criminal justice. you want to figure out how to diss mantle the system, follow the dollars. thank you. >> thursday, on washington journal, steven moore, editorial board member talks about the president's proposals and "newsweek's" combureo chief and we discuss the web site and the use of social media and the presidential campaign and author

of "life undone talks about efforts to amend the family medical leave act. it airs every mork at 7 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> april 15, 1912, nearly 1,500 perished on the ship called unsinkable. >> iceberg ahead. they struck the bells three times, dining, dining, dining, which is a warning and doesn't say what kind of object. what they did, they went to a phone and called down to tell them what it is that they saw and when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was what do you see? and the r

going to achieve concrete

results and have an effect on our country and the world. in order to have a prosperous and more free america. we have an education system that works. and so we have a reform movement that insists on accountability as a key to educational excellence and one of the things we are doing is that we are focusing on one of the key components of educational excellence and that is how to better recruit and train our nation's principles. we believe that all human life is precious. and know that we have a calling to help save lives in the developing world. i believe we are better people than we serve the admonition to whom much is given much is required. we started what is called a pink

ribbon-red ribbon campaign and that is to diagnose and treat cervical cancer and we are getting after it with measureable results. we believe that we strongly believe in the concept of freedom that everybody's's soul has the desire to be free. people are given their god-given rights. the freedom archive where dissidents, political prisoners, and march of freedom, where their stories are made available over the internet. people are saying what are you doing it for. we think it is important to record heroic figures like many,

that we cannot be isolation nifts and it's in our interests to support those who support us and if you are ined, go to our web site, which is freedomcollection.org you will find it interesting. we believe women will lead the democracy movement in the middle east. to this end, we have invited egyptian women to come to the country to see how civil society has developed in our own society, to introduce them to meantors and to send them back home encouraged and full of confidence that they have support here in the united states to take on the tough tasks to help democracy advance. one of the goals we have established for the women is for

them to set up a women's network across egypt to provide comfort and strength as they remind the men of egypt that they -- egypt that rights are honored and democracy yields to peace. we are advancing freedom by supporting our patriots and veterans. we got what we call the military service initiative and helping our vets. you are giving money to these n.g.o.'s. and you know, i mean, i enjoyed it and it is an interesting experience, inconvenient to stop at stop lights coming over here but -- [laughter] >> but i guess i missed that.

>> the bush institute is publishing a book. got to be a staggering. i publish a book. they didn't think i could read must less publish a book. we are publishing a book 21 experts have provided the content on how to achieve 4% growth in the private sector. we recognize this. but most of the experts believe it's doable. and i hope policy makers take time to read what the experts think. cutting wasteful spending or entitlement reform or immigration reform, increasing trade and what we are here to discuss today is pro-growth tax policy. what's the best tax policy.

you notice i have been emphasizing private sector growth. if it was public sector growth it would be a short conference, which is raise taxes, but we believe that the best policy is that which creates a robust private sector. and what does it mean? well, first of all, it means that an understanding of how jobs are created. who creates job. 70% are created by small business owners. it makes the economy so vital. most small businesses pay tax at the end income tax level. therefore, if you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you are really raising taxes on the job creators. and if the goal is private sector growth, you got to

recognize that the best way to create that growth is to leave capital in the treasuries of the job creators. secondly, if you raise taxes, -- i wish they weren't called the bush tax cuts. they are called somebody else's tax cuts and probably less likely to be raised, but if you raise taxes, you are taking money out of pockets to umh consumers and important for them to recognize that it causes capital to stay on the sidelines. uncertainty means that capital, fuel for private sector growth simply won't move. any way, that's what we are here to discuss. i think you are going to find it to be a fascinating day and i'm looking forward to hearing our first speaker. so chris christie has caught the

attention of a lot of people. we see your enormous personality, your rebus defense of freedom and belief in the individual. and we are looking forward to hearing you today. welcome, governor of new jersey. [applause] >> and now taking a demotion to be governor of new jersey, if you don't think it is a demotion, you go ahead and lose

grand jury subpoena power. i'm happy to be here this morning and talk to you about our experience in new jersey and i agree with the president that the most important thing that you can do as a governor for your economy is to try to institute pro-growth policies that grow the pot and that are optimistic, however, optimism was a thing that was a little difficult to find in january of 2010 in the state of new jersey, and here's why. in the eight years before i became governor, our state raised taxes and fees at the state level 115 times. in the decade before i became governor, new jersey had a zero -private-sector job growth a

decade, a decade where we had zero job growth, but yet before i became governor, we became the state in america that had the most government workers per square mile in their state. that is an enormous achievement. [laughter] >> and one that took incredible work by eight years of three democratic governors and a fully democratic legislature. and so when i came into office in the first few weeks of january of 2010, you would think to yourself that given in, the news couldn't get worse and i was assured by my predecessor that he was giving me a budget that as he said to me, on a glide path for the rest of the fiscal year. i guess he and i have a

different definition because in my second week as governor, my chief of staff and my treasurer came into my office and said if we did not cut $2.2 billion in spending in the next five weeks that new jersey would not meet payroll for the second pay period in march. now imagine that, 60% of the fiscal year already gone. 60% out the door and $29 billion budget and we have to find $2.2 billion not in projected growth, but in money we essentially had to sequester and already been appropriated and count on being spent across the state, in order to meet payroll, not in order to meet some lofty goal like cutting taxes, in order to meet our payroll in what is the second westiest state per capita

in america. if you need any greater example of what happens to an economy when a state government overtaxes, overspends, overborrows and overregulates, come to new jersey in january of 2010. the even with the second westiest population in america per capita, we were unable to meet payroll in the second session in march. i won an election in november of 2009. the democrats retained healthy majorities in both houses of my legislature. i was dealing with a democratic senate president and a democratic assembly speaker. we had two choices on the cuts. sit down and negotiate with the legislature or because of new jersey's unique constitutional

structure, we could, my attorney general argued cut the spending through executive order. for those of you who watched me for the last 2 1/2 years if you believe i made the first choice, then you need to leave. [laughter] >> so we sat in a room over the course of three weeks and we went overall 2,400 line items of the budget and cut $2.2 billion in the budget and asked for a joint session speech. and i went in there and you know, i will take what was a 40-minute speech and break it down to 0 seconds, which people say i should have done it in the first place, said, i came into office, you gave me this problem and did nothing to fix it, i just went in my office, and i cut $2.2 billion in spending, here are the cuts.

i signed an executive order and now in effect, i fixed your problem. see you later and we left. now you can imagine the reaction to this on the floor of the state legislature after i left. and the democratic leadership had their say. and they were calling me all kinds of names. julius seasar, in a poleion, all those leaders i admired so much. [laughter]

>> within three weeks of that speech, i had to project a budget. and 37% deficit, the largest deficit of any state in america. and now my democratic friends thought that was the time we move in for the kill and wept back to their favorite thing, president will be talking about it today, we are going to have

millionaires' surcharge to help the balance the budget. you think that is millionaire's tax? here's how it went. in new jersey, they said the millionaires' tax applied to everyone who made $400,000 a year or over. now that's called new jersey math, everybody. and see, i tried to use the sling point earlier in my administration. i said to the people, listen, we all aspire to be wealthy and all aspire for success and if you are not a millionaire but would like to feel like one, come to new jersey. [laughter] >> even if you are not a millionaire, we will tax you like one. [laughter] >> what they are talking about now is that mailion air's tax was 9% on everything $400,000

and over. now what they wanted was 10.75% on everything $400,000 and over. so we had a little debate about that, the conflicts in my budget and they decided before they considered the budget they were going to pass that tax and they did. it was great fanfare. he passed the bill in the senate and called on the cameras and marred himself down towards my office and you know everybody growing up has a gr mother and she taught me to be polite and i know you have one too, mr. president. i came on and greeted the guests and he handed me the bill. democrats call these increases and say the freedom of equity and maybe they could slide it

by. sure. where do i sign. he happeneded me the bill. mr. governor, here's the bill. wait one second. i want you to wait. and i sat down at the table and i took out this pen and i handed it back to him and i said take it back because this is president where we're going in new jersey anymore and he said we'll be back and i said we'll see. and wept ahead and proposed the budget that balanced the budget without any tax increases that cut spending, not projecting growth. that cut -- [applause] >> one guy started clapping. i'm glad i's back, thanks for coming. because we cut every department in state government, every one

of them. everything got cut. everyone shared in the sacrifice. and so they said that budget was dead on arrival. but that's fine. we decided we believe especially this easter season in life. we resurrected that budget. the legislature passed it. democratic legislature passed it with 99.8% of the line items. the people of new jersey had a budget that did not increase taxes or fees or the cost of their government to them. you can't start pro-growth policies until you get your house in order. you have to first step up to the plate. what do we do next. new jersey has the highest property taxes in america. before i became new jersey governor, property taxes increased 70% in 10 years.

as they were passing that budget at about 2:00 a.m., the day before the constitutional deadline, i faxed them a little surprise. i used my constitutional authority to call them back into session on july 1 to say we are going to consider a 2% cap on property taxes before we leave for summer vacation. so they passed my budget and they went back to their offices and found out they had to go back to work. this is a strain on our families and said we aren't doing anything on the cap, governor. i said, ok come back on the 2 pped. we are getting closer to the 4th and it was over a weekend and 2nd and 3rd came and spouses from all over new jersey were calling their husbands and wives from the state legislatures saying, we are at the new jersey shore and waiting for you, the

kids are driving us crazy and give him to whatever he wants. i'm dedicate to the spouses of new jersey because we came to a 2% agreement on property taxes in new jersey and then later in the year, totally reformed the arbitration system that were driving salaries up and i think the same 2% cap on interest arbitration awards said it will drive property taxes up in a way that was unaccountable to the people. depen, under the democratic legislature. another big problem to fix thereafter. medicare, medicaid and social security are threatening the fiscal health of our country. state pensions and health benefit costs were threatening the health of our state's

economy. in the fall of 2010, we had a $54 billion deficit in our pension fund. and a $67 billion deficit in our health benefit fund. $121 billion combined. that would be four years of a state budget just to bring that to balance if we kept things in the same direction. i came out in september of 2010, with a pension health benefit proposal. now in health benefits, the public workers in new jersey paid nothing for their health insurance from the day they were hired until the day they died. nothing for their health insurance. and on pensions, we had to make significant changes and proposed increasing the retirement age and cost-of-living adjustments until they were 80% or higher ending early retirement for

anybody. as you can imagine -- and by the way, increase the contributions by public employees to their pensions. you can imagine this wasn't extraordinarily popular and i went to put this proposal out in the first week to the firefighters convention in wildwood, new jersey. 4,000 firefighters at 2:00 on a friday afternoon. lunch was not solid that day as i can tell you and they were fired up and ready to go. when i got introduced, long walk from the side stage to the front of the stage and booing me like crazy and i got up and they said we are upset about your proposal. my staff had talkic -- talking points up on the di arch s and i talk them out ap threw them

away. didn't work. they booed more. and then i said, come on, like let it out. and they did. and they booed more. and i said you can do better than that. and they did. they exhausted themselves, literally exhausted themselves and i said you know about my proposal and i ups that you are angry and feel betrayed and lied to and the reason you are angry and feel betrayed and lied to, you have the right to be angry and you have been betrayed and governors have come in here and promised things they knew they couldn't pay for and they lied to you to get your vote and you voted for them and now you are angry.

and if i have two terms i will be gone in 2017. no political upside of me telling you. if these reforms get passed, 10 years from now when you retire and be able to collect the pension and get health benefits, look at my home address and send me a thank you note because i told you the truth. and we wept from there and did 30 town hall meetings arguing the point that this was not just pro-taxpayer, it was pro new jersey economy and it was pro union worker. and believe it or not, in june of 2011, with only 1 third of the democrats in the senate and 1/3 of the democrats in the

assembly along the republicans we passed that package, saving $132 billion over the next 30 years to the taxpayers ff our state and securing the pension and health benefit programs to people who they have been promised to. we did that because of steve sweeney was courageous and stood up and he sponsored the bill and posted the bill. and sheila oliver, african-american women from essex county, stood up and voted for the bill, posted the bill with only 1/3 of her caucus supporting her. they said we are partnering with the governor to do the right thing for our state. leadership does count. and so now, what do we see in new jersey? well, we are now in a budget

situation where we aren't dealing with multi-billion-dollar deficits. i was able to propose a budget this year that proposed the first income tax cut in new jersey in over 15 years, 10% across the board income tax cut. here's the amazing thing, you expect the democrats to be arguing with me about it. the majority are saying we have to cut taxes, which how to cut taxes with people like all of you here, you know what that means. now we are just dickering over the details. what matters, what matters is we have changed a place like new jersey to understand the very principles that the president was talking about when he stood up here a few minutes ago, that if you want to grow jobs in new jersey, you have to leave more money in the hands of the people that create those jobs.

since i have become governor we have created 175,000 private sector jobs in new jersey and cut the public sector. .

d.c., most importantly. what we need again is some leadership that is not going to take no for an answer. leadership who understands that these things happen in new jersey, not because our ideas are right, but because we have developed relationships with the other side of the aisle that allows them to trust us. that does not happen overnight. day after day after day, you have to sit with your colleagues and convince them of the goodness of your spirit. the understanding that compromise is not a dirty word. as governors, what we know is that there is always a boulevard between compromising your principles and getting

everything you want. in new jersey, i abandoned the getting everything you want thing a long time ago. but i refuse to compromise my principles. when they want to build a tunnel through the basement of macy's and stick the new jersey taxpayers with a bill, no matter how much the administration yells and screams, you have to say no. you have to look them right in the eye and say no. you have to be willing to say no to those things that compromise your principles. there is a boulevard between getting everything you want and compromising your principles. it is our job to find a way onto the boulevard. to never forget that what we got sent into office to do was to get things done. not to send out press releases, not to just posture. i love all those things. [laughter]

we cannot just do that. at the end of that, you have to find a way to make progress. the 4% solution, 4% growth is not going to be achieved if we do not deal with medicare. it is not going to be achieved if we do not deal with medicaid. if we do not deal with social security. 4% is not going to be achieved unless we can credibly advocate for pro-growth tax policies because we have our fiscal house in order. for all of us who believe that the policies the president advocated and spoke about today are the right policies, we know that job one is to be credible with the people of our state and our country that we will be responsible stewards of the money they already sent us. i would contend to you that we are still a distance from making that case.

we have a lot more work to do. a lot more work to do. in the end, for the people of my state, they do not always agree with everything i do. they certainly do not always agree with the way i say it. what they notice, i am telling them the truth as i see it. i am not looking to be loved. i think politicians get themselves into the biggest trouble when they care more about being loved than being respected. that is why we run up these deficits. that is why we cannot say no to anything. i am loved enough at home. believe me. on occasion. [laughter]

my mother told me a long time ago, if you have the choice between being loved and being respected, take respected. if you are respected, true love may happen. she was talking about women. i think it applies to politics. if you get people to respect you, you are willing to say no, but you are also willing to listen, you are willing to stand hard on principles that you have articulated to the public, but willing to compromise when those principles will not be violated, then respect will come. even those who do not agree with me know that when i look them at the eye and tell them i will do something, i do it. regardless of the political cost. if i tell them i am not going to do something, i won't. regardless of the political

expediency. on the door of my senior staff's offices, the inside of their door, they have reprinted a headline from a new york magazine profile they did on me. the headline on this story was "the answer is no." when the lobbyists come in and they close the door to have the meeting, they say, turn around. that is from the boss. and then we can say yes to the right things. to cutting taxes, to lowering regulation, to empower the people of the state and country to be optimistic again.

i have never seen a less optimistic time in my lifetime in this country. people wonder why. i think it is simple. government is telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we will take care of you. we are turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. that will not just to bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally. when the american people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, we will have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for the next government check. new jersey moved in that direction. we are moving away from that direction. i would urge all of you, the

only way to fix that is by electing strong leaders in every state house across america to set the example and to set a fire underneath washington, d.c., that they will not be able to ignore. we're trying to do that every day in new jersey. we're comfortable in being judged. we will be judged on the basis of the decisions we have made and the record we have created. i hope we will be one of the flagships in the bush institute 4% growth plan because if we are, it will mean there will be more money, more hope, more aspirations in the hearts of our children and grandchildren than there are today. that is what will make the 21st century the second american century. that will allow the united states to export hope and liberty and freedom around the

world, not by just saying it, but by living it every day in the way we conduct ourselves in the way we govern ourselves. mr. president, thank you for setting that example. thank you for inspiring a whole new generation of conservative republican leaders who you helped to create. so many of us who sit in the state houses today are products of your leadership, your willingness to give us a chance to make a difference in our country and your administration and now to make a difference in our states and a country and in the world because of the opportunity you gave us. thank you very much. [applause]

>> president obama advocates for the passage of the but that role. then white house coverage with several republican campaign events. mitt romney is speaking at alphagraphics followed by newt gingrich. after that, how effective sanctions have been in shaking iran's campaign. >> live on c-span thursday, imf managing director christine lagarde is at the brookings institute. shultz discussed the imf's agenda. this gets underway at 11:00 a.m. eastern. later, afghanistan's minister of

defense talk about the training of the afghan army and police force as well as counter- terrorism efforts. they're speaking at the center for strategic and international studies. >> our specific mission is work to see that human rights remain essential component of american foreign policy. when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, a human rights can never be the only consideration. it has to be part of the dialogue. >> she is the president and ceo of the lantos foundation for justice. >> will revalue our deepest -- when we value our deepest values, and the issue on

whether they should pass the accountability act, whether or not we're going to stay on russia. human rights matter in russia and china. >> sunday night at 8:00. >> i walked out after the iowa caucus victory and said game on. a lot of people are going to write a game over. this game is a long way from over. we are going to fight to make sure we did the president obama. we stand for the values that make us americans. >> with that announcement, rick santorum and his 2012

presidential bid. follow the steps to ticket the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. >> president obama continue to make his case for raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. his proposal of the buffett role would requiring anyone making $1 million a year to pay 30% of their income in taxes. he said it could be renamed the reagan role after the former president to call for a simpler and more fair tax code. the senate is expected to take a vote on the next week.

>> it is wonderful to see you, especially you. oh, man, i know - having to listen to a speech. [baby crying] it is wonderful to see you. lately we have been talking about the fundamental choice that we face as a country. we can settle for an economy where a shrinking number of people do very, very well and everybody else is struggling to get by or we can build an economy where we are rewarding hard work and responsibility, an economy where everybody has a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. the people who have joined me here today are extremely successful.

they have created jobs and opportunities for thousands of americans. they are rightly proud of their success. veil of the country that made their success possible and most importantly, they want to make sure the next generation, people coming up behind them, have the same opportunities they had. they understand that for some time now, when compared to the middle class, they have not been passed to do their fair share. they are here because they believe there is something deeply wrong and irresponsible about that. at a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1% of people in this country has climbed to levels we have not seen since the 1920's, these same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. in fact, one in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hard- working middle-class households. while many millionaires to pay their fair share, some take advantage of loopholes,

shelters, that let them get away with paying no income taxes whatsoever. that is all perfectly legal under the system that we currently have. you have heard that my friend warren buffett pays a lower tax rate and his secretary because he is the one who has been pointing that out and saying we should fix it. executives who are with me today agree with him. they agree with warren buffett that this should be fixed. they have brought some of their own assistance to prove that same point. it is just plain wrong that middle-class americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires. it is not that these folks are excited about the idea of paying more taxes. i have yet to meet people who just love taxes.

nobody loves paying taxes. in a perfect world, nobody would have to pay taxes. we would have no deficits to pay down. school and bridges and roads and national defence and caring for our veterans would happen magically. we would all have the money we need to make investments in the things that help us grow. investments that have always been essential to the private sector success as well, not just important to the people directly benefit from these programs but historically, those investment we have made in infrastructure, education, science, technology, transportation -- that is part of what has made us an economic superpower and it would be nice not to have to pay for them. this is the real world that we live. we have real choices and real consequences. we've got a significant deficit that will have to be closed. right now, we have significant needs it want to continue to grow this economy and compete in this 21st century hyper- competitive technologically-

integrated economy. that means we cannot afford to keep spending more money on tax cuts for wealthy americans who don't need them and were not even asking for them. it is time we did something about it. i want to emphasize that this is not simply an issue of read- distributing wealth. that is what you hear from those who object to a tax plan that is fair. this is not just about fairness. this is about growth. this is also about being able to make the investments we need to succeed and it is about we, as a country, being willing to pay for those investments and closing our deficits.

that is what this is about. next week, members of congress will have a chance to vote on what we call the buffettt rule. if you make more than $1 million per year, not if you have $1 million, but if you make more than $1 million per year, you should peg at least same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families. if, on the other hand, you make less than $250,000 per year like 90% of american families, your taxes should not go up. that is all there is to it. that is pretty sensible. most americans agree with me. so do most millionaires. one survey found that 2/3 of millionaires support this idea and said to nearly half of all republicans across america. we just need some of the republican politicians here in washington to get on board with where the country is.

i know that some prefer to run around using the same reflexes and false claims about wanting to raise people's taxes but they won't tell you the truth. i have cut taxes for middle- class families each year i have been in office. i have cut taxes for small business owners not once or twice but 17 times. for most of the folks in this room, taxes are lower than they have been or as low as they have been in 50 years. there are others who say this is just a gimmick. taxing millionaires and billionaires and imposing the warren buffett will not do enough to close the deficit. well, i agree. that is not all we have to do to close the deficit. the notion that does not solve the entire problem does not mean we should not do it at all. there are enough excuses for inaction in washington are we certainly don't need more excuses. the warren buffett rule is something that will get us moving in the right direction towards fairness, economic growth, it will help us close our deficit, and is more

specific than anything the other side has proposed so far. if republicans in congress were truly concerned with deficits and debt, i am assuming that would not just a proposed to spend an additional $4.60 trillion on lower tax rates including an average tax cut of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in america. they want to go in the opposite direction. they want to double down on some of the inequities that already exist in the tax code. if we are going to keep giving somebody like me were some of the people in this room, tax breaks that we don't need and we cannot afford, then one of two things happens -- either you got to borrow more money to pay

down a deeper deficit or you've got to demand deeper sacrifices from the middle class and you've got to cut investments that help us grow as economies. you've got to tell seniors to pay little bit more for their medicare. you've got to tell the college students will have to trot -- charging higher interest rates under student loans. you will have to tell that working family that is scraping by the table have to do more because the wealthiest of americans are doing less. that is not right. the middle class has seen enough of this over last few decades. we should not let that happen. we will not stop investing in the things that create real and lasting growth in this country just so folks like me can get an additional tax cut. we will not stop building first- class schools and making sure they've got science labs in them. we will not fail to make investments in basic science and research that could cure diseases that harm people or create the new technology that ends up creating and jobs in industries that we have not seen before.

in america, prosperity is not just trickled down from a wealthy few. prosperity is always -- has always been built in the bottom up, from the part of the middle class out word. it is time for congress to stand up for the middle class and make our tax is fairer by passing this warren buffett rule. i am not the first president to call for this idea that everybody has to do their fair share. one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. he gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates and his secretary and wanted to come to washington and tell congress what was wrong. so does president give another speech where he said it was crazy "that certain tax

loopholes make it crazy for millionaires to pay nothing while the bus driver was paying 10% of his salary." that wild eyed socialist tax writing class warrior was ronald reagan. he thought that in america, the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so. i know that position might disqualify him from the republican primary these days - [laughter] but what ronald reagan was calling for them is the same thing we are calling for now, a return to basic fairness and responsibility. everybody doing their part. if it will help convince folks in congress to make the right choice, we could call up the reagan rule instead of the buffett rule.

the choice is clear -- as though this kind of and i'm asking every american that agrees with me to call your member of congress and write them an e- mail or tweet them and tell them to stop giving tax breaks to the wealthiest americans who don't meet them and are not asking for them and tell them to start asking everybody to do their fair share and play by the same rules so that every american who was willing to work hard has a chance at similar success said that we are making the investments that help this economy grow so that we are able to bring down our deficit in a fair and balanced and sensible way. tell them to pass the buffett rule. i will keep making this case across the country because i believe this rule, is consistent with those principles and those values, helps make us this remarkable place where everybody has the opportunity.

each of us is only here because somebody somewhere felt responsibility not only for themselves but also for their community and for their country. they felt a responsibility to us, to future generations, and now it is our turn to be similarly responsible. it is our turn to preserve the american dream for future generations. i want to thank those of you who are here with me today and thank everyone in the audience and want to appeal to the american people -- let's make sure we keep the pressure on congress to do the right thing. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> thursday, stephen moore joins us to talk about the president and republicans budget rules. then the news we washington bureau chief. they discussed their newly launched website and the use of social media in the presidential campaign. efforts to amend the family medical leave act to cover bereavement. it airs every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i walked out after the iowa caucus a victory and said game

on. i know a lot of people will write game over. is long from over. we will make sure we win the house back and we take the united states senate and the stand for the values that make us americans, that make us the greatest country in the history of the world. >> rick santorum and his 2012 presidential bid. follow these steps he took along the road at the c-span video library with every program since 1987. >> we asked students to create a video explaining what part of the constitution was important to them and why. we are going to walk a shot to

meet with tyler bridges to waukesha -- to walk a shot to meet with tyler johnson. my grandmother was able to live through that amendment. it still very much there and the family and in the house said they lived in. >> you covered the history of this. what does this help you understand about this. it shows me that it was that

important to them back then. they do not want that to go unnoticed. it there wanted it to be as equal as men and everybody. >> what did you learn about some of the early leaders? >> i learned that they were part of writing this amendment. they never really wanted to give up on that. they always kept going after their dreams. that was to be able to create men and womenuntry where were equal to each other. >> you mentioned your grandmother earlier. how did your relationship with their deepen its? >> it made me feel a little more like i could help reelect to her a little more. in mamie phyllite i -- it made

me feel like i was part of where she was from. it made me feel a little more like i was actually there. we read able to have this right to vote. >> what is your favorite part of this process? >> it is interesting to learn about this amendment. i think it was also very fun to see how all my information that i put together and i created was fun to see how it came together into an a minute video of more than an hour worth of footage i had. >> what would you like those to see a documentary to learn? >> voting is not just a

privilege. it is almost irresponsibility like my grandmother. i agree with that strongly. i do think that people should learn that what the woman had to go through to get this right is in just somebody -- is it just asking someone what was like to vote. they have to go through many years of suffering and hard work to get to where they got to. >> thank you for talking with us. >> thank you. here is a brief portion of tither's documentary. >> i am a citizen of this country and this culture. the only way i participate fully is by voting. it is my response ability to vote. >> they drafted the amendment

and first introduced its in 1878. they submitted an amendment for ratification. a year later, it is ratified by the regulated them for a state. it was the final vote needed to add an amendment to the constitution. >> did ratified with the perfect 36 states which happen to be tennessee. tennessee was on the spot. it became the perfect 36. >> he could watch the entire documentary along with all winning videos at student cam.org. >> mitt romney took aim at the obama administration today, the

president is waging a war on women through his failed economic policies. he was speaking at a campaign event of a woman owned company. they call this on april 24. it is the same day as primaries in delaware and rhode island. >> we welcome you here today. your campaign did not know when they called me last week what my political affiliations a word appeared in never asked me. >> i will do it now. never ask a question you don't know the answer to hear -- the answer to. >> we feel you are uniquely qualified to solve the economic

crisis we have appeared my interest as an employer of 24 people and the grandmother of 11 grandchildren i am concerned about the next 10-30 years. and the next four years. so they did not have to worry about paying the national debt. [applause] >> hello, connecticut. i cannot think of a better place to pick up a presidential a general election campaign or our republican nominee than right here in in harbor, conn. he is carrying a message of economic freedom, fiscal responsibility and energy independence, exactly what we need here in conn. i would like to introduce you a man that i am proud to be supporting.

in the next president of the united states. >> thank you. please, we have a seat for you right there. you are in good shape. what do you think? could we put a few more people

in there? thanks. >>out of the hallway we were just it just outside their two or 300 people out there we just for the fun of going out and speaking to them there's a very enthusiastic get interest in. in seeing some new leadership by the the president's campaign slogan was let's hope and change. i think that's changing now to two let's hope for a change. there are so many dignitaries there. do want to introduce all that are here? all friends and new. we appreciate your joining. i have had the opportunity to meet with each of these business owners. you wonder why there behind me. we spent half an hour or so talking about their businesses. the heated them is running a business.

they do not feel the government is their ally. each of them said it would be nice of government got out of the way. i asked them to be more specific in which ways they could get out of the way. they began to go through various things that government does that makes it harder to be a woman in business or a small business in general. i hear that as i go across the country. i hear the concerns they have that the government, perhaps out of a sense of trying to help is making things worse. the one thing you have to fear is when someone comes to your door and says "i hear from the government and i am here to help."

there is a recognition that what makes america and the economic engine is not government telling us how to live our lives or how to build our enterprises or grow them, but it is three people pursuing their own people in the way they perceive a -- free people pursuing their own dreams and the way they perceive the best. [applause] i was disappointed in listening to the president as he says republicans are waging a war on women. did the real war on women is being waged by the president's failed economic policies. there -- can i borrow that? 01 if you has been these. we handed these out. these are just statistics which showed just how severe the war on women has been by virtue of the president's failed policies. this is an amazing statistic. the number of jobs lost by women, at 92.30 of all the jobs lost during the obama years have been lost by women.

the presence as i did not cause this recession. that is true. he made it worse and made it last longer. because of last a long year, more women lost jobs. 92.3% of the people who lost jobs have been women. his failures have her women. what president has the worst record on female labor force recognition? barack obama. we have gone back 20 years. the progress that was made of more women getting into the workforce has been stepped back 20 years. under president obama, 858,000 more women are out of work. 858,000 more women are out of work.

the total female unemployment rate has gone from 7% to 8.1% in march 2012. this president has failed america's women. finding ex-president, i will go to work to get american women good jobs, rising incomes, and growing businesses. thank you. thank you. the president's failure for women is not just a statistical anomaly. these are real people and wrote families after being hurt. let me tell you which policies hurt. one was borrowing $787 billion and adding that to the deficit and using that not to create private sector jobs but to protect government.

he fell to get americans back to work. he passed the dodd/frank. it does anyone think dodd frank made easier for loans and tax the banks have become bigger appeared there the too big to fail banks. -- bigger. did they are the too big to fail banks. they're having a hard time under dodd/frank. i spoke to one head of a large new york centered bank. he said we have hundreds of lawyers implementing dodd/frank. hundreds of lawyers. banks cannot afford hundreds of lawyers. it has caused the loan sector to build back. then there was the president's labor policies.

everything from trying to force unions and to businesses that neither the employees or employers wanted and then the national labor relations board saying if you are a right to work state, you cannot have a factory from boeing scared the dickens out of a lot of employers. you have employers worried about gasoline prices. one women described to me the fact that they have a business that has how many gallons a day? 300 gallons a day. a penny a gallon savings or not help a lot when you have 300 gallons a day that you are buying. why are they so high? the speculators make an investment as to what they think the future price of gasoline will be. as a look at the future, and they look at what the president is doing today. he has cut back by half the

number of licenses and permits the are provided on public plans to drill for oil. he held off on drilling in the gulf. he is not drilling in anwar. fuel is being held up because of the epa. if we want to get america working again, we're going to have to have a president that will get american energy secure. cut back on its trade policies that makes it harder for us to go into new markets, a crackdown on china and. we will have a president that will finely balanced the budget. the other day the president said sunday i agree with. it happens every now and then. he said this will be a defining election. i agree.

there are pretty dramatic differences. his vision for america is a european style social welfare state where he promises bigger checks and government to everybody. my vision is a land that is free and filled with opportunities. if you're looking for a bigger check from government, he is your guy. if you're looking for more freedom and opportunity, rising incomes, a bright future for your kids, vote for me. i will get that job done for the american people.

you have been standing long enough. he can go off. i just want to say a couple of things. i have had the privilege over the last year of going across the country and meeting with people like these women here and then women of all backgrounds and interests. i am more optimistic than ever. i am afraid if all you did was watch the evening news, you might conclude things are getting worse and worse. he might feel a little skeptical about the future and cynical. my own view is that is wrong. as the meat the people of -- as you meet people in the news, there typically not good.

i get to meet every day americans who are going to work, entrepreneurs of various kinds. one of the women here indicated that she and her husband have a service station. the economics did not work. they changed it. they went into a car wash business. it is doing well. we are invented, creative people. if something is not working, we make something elsewhere. that is how the whole economy works. the liberals have this idea that a few smart bureaucrats can guided the whole economy, tell us how to run our enterprises. they can pick the winners and losers. they can give them $500 million. they can do a better job than individuals pursuing their own ideas. they can let the marketplace determine which will succeed and fail. these guys the government works. they are wrong.

it is not a larger government trying to guide our lives. it is freedom and opportunity, allowing individuals to pursue happiness. that is how the founders intended it appeared i believe founders were both inspired and brilliant. they said the creature had in doubt as with their right. among those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. do not forget we are free to pursue happiness as we choose. there is the ability to choose our cars and light. those freedoms brought freedoms for hundreds of years. that built the most powerful economy in the world. sometimes people say "how, europeans have such a lower standard of living?"

they have a 50's are higher income. why is that? the dna of humanity is the same. those principles, freedom, opportunity. when government intrude on those freedoms, it makes it the powerhouse it is. i want to restore america to the nation it was. this president will do in his campaign anything he can to deflect from his record. what i'm going to have to do every day is bring him back to his record. the policies of this administration have led to 92% of the people losing their jobs. when he says there is a war on women, let him know it is a wage rise economic policy.

those policies do not work. ronald reagan used to say effectively that it is not that liberals are ignorant. it is that what they know is wrong. i do not think the president is a bad guy. i just think his political philosophy is entirely wrong. it is hurting the american people. is that the harder for our economy to recover. i want to return to the principles of our founding. they strengthen our economy. they give us hope for the future. they make sure that children

will have the future we hope. i love the people of america. we are the greatest nation in the history of the earth. it is time for us to stop apologizing for success. we will never apologize for success abroad. i would want to thank these women are standing here and spending some time with me. i think them for the fact that they are business owners and managers. i appreciate what you do. i appreciate the work of the american people. as you're fighting to make this enterprise more successful, you are lifting our economy and making it easier for us to care for our seniors.

been makes this nation what is. i appreciate the work you're doing. i will solicit your help. i need your help to get elected. i need you to vote multiple times. the only way you can do that legally is by talking to your friends and asking them to vote for me. we have always known that there is something very special about america. what makes it special is different to some of us. it is special to all of us. there's always been a time that you stand a little straighter and taller. we have they get no one else in the world has. we know that this nation has done more to free other people from tyranny. other nations have adopted those things. they have lifted people from

poverty. we have done more to let people out of poverty. it is an extraordinary land we live in. we are not at a critical time. we are at a defining time. are we going to turn left and become like europe? are we going to restore the principles amatas who we are. that is a vision for america. bring back freedom and opportunity. stop attacking fellow americans. stop trying to define us. i will unite this country to make sure we remain,. thank you so much. thank you. quacks connecticut is one of seven states holding a republican primary.

rick santorum dropping out of the race on tuesday. the three remaining candidates are competing for the delegates. coming up this friday comment mitt romney and newt gingrich will address the national rifle association meeting in st. louis. other speakers include rick santorum and erick kanter, rick perry, and scott walker. what live coverage beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern friday on c- span, cspan.org, and you can follow it on c-span radio. >> newt gingrich also posted a town hall meeting focusing his remarks on reforming social security. the event took place in dover delaware. he said he is committed to staying in the race until the

convention. he currently trails mitt romney in the delegate count. delaware is among the five states holding its primary on april 24. >> hello. i of the republican president here at wesley college. i am the chair of the delaware students. it is on 236 campuses across the country. i urge you to get involved and to get on there. it is newt.org/students. i am also the chief staff of the student government association. i would like to introduce to you the former united states -- the former speaker of the united states house of representatives and republican candidates for presidential election, the honorable newt gingrich.

2 >> thank you, you did good. >> thank you very much. thank you for coming out this evening and for giving us an opportunity to talk about ideas and to be in a setting where it is totally appropriate to talk about ideas. with the main reasons i decided to run for president is we have a tremendous challenge in trying to develop a generation of ideas. our system is a remarkably resistant to new information. it automatically shifts over to talk about any thing else. as ashley asked today about when i was speaker. a reporter went off on my hair. he's been the whole article talking about my hair.

from the standpoint of being a liberal, maybe that was less dangerous than talking about my ideas. it is literally that kind of politics. if you look at what i thought was a totally artificial fight over contraception and you look at how much total news coverage from january 7 when george stephanopoulos started to 3.5 months was spent on this, then you compare it to how much serious conversation has there been about saving social security tax how much sears conversation has there been about the reliance on saudis for oil. one of the major reasons i decided to run, if you are young person let me give you an example. if you are a young person under the current deficit spending pattern, just to pay interest on the deck you will inherit, you will not have gotten any of the goods and services.

you will just get the debt. the politicians will have spent the money and taking care of your parents and grandparents. you will go to work. it is like having a credit card. you'll just pay the interest payments appeared in your working life time, you will pay $300,000 in taxes. just to pay interest on the debt. that means you will have bought a house. it'll be a house for politicians. it not be a house for you. you go down a series of steps. this is the weakest since the great depression. you are going to end up in a world where it is harder to get a job which will have higher

gasoline rates. it will be less disposable income. your taxes will be higher. this will lead you less money to pay off your student loans. in that contest -- context, what will your options b? having a long-term conversation actually matters the most to people who are currently young. you will live the long-term experience.

. .

in your article, as you suggest we should try to build a coalition. i think that is a fair argument. do you think that united states should go to war with iran even if it is just washington tax >> that is a good question. my position is that if we get to this choice of deciding between a strike, it is the least bad option. we are not to appoint yet. some people have sat want to go to war last tuesday.

if iran takes steps to kick out international inspectors, right now it is enriching to 20%. i think those should be the point at which the united states has passed to use military force to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. i think the united states shouldn't build an international coalition. -- should build an international coalition. i think it is not likely the united states could not build a coalition. i think we could get british support, and nato would support us. i think the united states could build a coalition. the question is how large. one of my concerns, i think we should be focusing on trying to get a deal. we also need to start thinking about plan b. it is possible they could start

in reaching tomorrow. we would have to make this decision tomorrow. i think we made to start laying craft work for a possibility. we should outreach -- groundwork for a possibility. we should outreach to our allies. here is what we seek. do you agree? that is of the conversation we should have now. if we could not build the coalition, i think that to the cost of day nuclear war is so high, -- of a nuclear war is so high, it would outweigh the cost of international condemnation that would come in the wake of a unilateral strike. >> your question? >> we have done this a couple of times. i will ask you the question i usually ask you, if diplomacy

fails, what would you recommend, if you got the call from the president and he said we have good intelligence that iran is enriching, what do i need to do? do i need to strike? what would you say? >> it is a good question. i am confident that the president would not call me in that circumstance. there are smarter people to call than me. it would depend. i think our ratios are different. i think the nuclear challenge is significant but not as grave as you do. the standard for me using military force is probably higher than yours because the risk-reward ratio is different. i am not a pacifist. i take the position code did. i'm against them wars.

in my view, any israeli action is a dumb war. if the bar house to be set high for the united states, this is what i would ask myself, has every option been exhausted, and diplomatic sanctions, etc. is there smoking gun evidenced iranians are going for a weapon, actual evidence that they are? are there non-overt ways of getting at this issue that would not require large amounts of military force? why would have a preference for those. are we able to forge a coalition? here you and i probably differ. i think the only scenario in which military action to make sense against iran is if it it is like the 1991 war with iraq, not like the 2003 war. that is a very large coalition.

if the only way to mitigate the consequences of this strike, if you do not have a large coalition going in, i am talking arab states, a u.n. mandate, it is going to be difficult to maintain the isolation of iran in the aftermath of a strike. what we've learned from iraq is that we put a lot of energy into the first three weeks and did not think about the aftermath. the post-war scenario is troubling. if we will be able to keep them isolated and prevent them from building their nuclear program, we're going to neither russian, china, the europeans, so unless you go with a large coalition, you will not be able to prevent iran from reconstituting its program. that means the risk-reward ratio argues against military action.

the difference is one of degree. you see the threat of closer. i come to a different conclusion on almost all of those. i think we can wait longer or. i think we have other options. we should go big or not go at all. >> that would be beginning greeted co booger or go home. -- that would be go big or go home. >> i have lois wanted to ask this question. president obama -- always wanted to ask this question. president obama, d you think that might be a deterring factor on iran or make them think twice about what they want to go into in terms of provoking a military strike? after all, the guy in the white

house's east -- is the guy who said to go get osama bin laden. is that a deterrent? >> one of the reasons iran is not taking some of the more pro- active steps they could take, such as in reaching beyond 20%, is because they are afraid of possible military action. i think there are things we could do to make that threat clear to iran and to strengthen that deterrent. in the past, officials used to say things like, all options are on the table. but the military option is a bad one. it is not a very good deterrent. over the past few weeks and months, the language has become tougher. president obama says containment is a policy. he does not block. if iran build nuclear weapons, it will be stopped.

obama's rhetoric has become tougher. i think there is more we can do. we did not talk about sanctions but as we go back into negotiations, it is not clear to me we have a good strategy in terms of what we are willing to except from iran and offer them to incentivize themon their prod of negotiations we bring. i think we should make it clear that if we meet there are possible benefits for them, such as lifting of sanctions. we should also communicate more clearly that if they take provocative steps, if they and ridge above 20%, the united states will use force to stop them from building nuclear weapons. we should use carrots and sticks than we have at this point done in the past.

>> i think their view of our credibility is next. they have seen in the last two or three administrations, a series of provocations, bombings and places like lebanon, attacks against u.s. forces, not worrying about a military response against iran. it is to create possible deniability. nevertheless, they may think we do not have the stomach because they told american soldiers -- killed and we have not come after them. it is hard to argue that president obama, i know he got the peace prize, but he is not against using force when it is in the interest of the united states. there is the libya example and afghanistan, which was a major

escalation of that conflict. this is a president who is willing to use force when it is in the national interest. he has said iran's nuclear proliferation, he said all options are on the table. he says he is not bluffing or in favor of containing a nuclear iran. he says it is unacceptable. it is clear. the question is, do we have to become even clear in the way that that suggests? i do not now. i think it is pretty clear. we have another hundredth -- 100,000 forces. i think they get it. we are there and we are present. the thing i am worried about from people who want to be to the war drum, we have to calibrate this because the iran

in regime could believe we are so committed to military action that diplomacy is an illusion. we are trying to check the box on the way to war. like the bush administration was accused of doing. that could be a self to tilling prophecy. or you make of the threats so overt that becomes difficult to back down. he says we will not give in to pressure or threats. if you start to threaten the regime, it becomes that much harder to give them a way out that would save face. i think we have calibrated in just about right. not being too loose about war or -- and to emphasize there is a window of time for diplomacy. >> i think it is time to take

questions from the audience. line up at the microphone. we have one that will be here in the corner. if you could line up and ask your questions. i would ask you identify yourself and please ask a question, and not make a statement. >> thank you for the presentation.

[inaudible] >> you got shooting of technology. -- to lve technology. -- love technology. >> i would like to ask you about the likelihood of iran taking israel given the fact that the third most sacred place for islam is interisland. about 1.5 million arabs live in israel and another 2 million within 40 miles of tel aviv, the gaza strip is 40 miles. it is not a jewish state. there are millions of arabs in the same territory, living and

working. jerusalem is the site of the third most sacred site for is from. -- islam. i do not see any reason for israel to attack because iran will not attack them and also the israeli economy is booming. it is a strong and the stock market is not paying attention to the crisis because it is going higher and higher. what do you think about this? i would also like to ask about the crisis atmosphere which is created. does this benefit is rel. in iran in the sense that -- israel and iran in the sense that usually when a prime minister is coming to washington, and he is being rebuked for expansion in the west bank. this time the only talk about the israeli underdog.

[overlapping] >> if we could rapid up. we have aligned. -- wrap it up. we have a line. >> they are pocketing $100 million every day because of this crisis. >> i can try to go quickly. i think the prospect of iran using a nuclear weapon or transferring it to a militant group to use against israel is a low. for the reasons you point out, for the religious reasons, and a champion themselves as the champions of resistance. and it risks retaliation by israel and the united states which would end the revolution.

it is hard to see what objective would be satisfied. i do not think the regime is suicidal. i do not think they would use it against israel. as it relates to if it is diverting attention, it may have that effect. but they are not happy with how far it has progressed. it is hurting the economy. now that the oil sector is intact, they could be in trouble. maybe it serves their purposes at one point, but maybe it helps divert attention from the palestinian issue but i do not think that is what they're doing. i think is really leaders believe that the iranian threat to them as an existential. -- israeli leaders believe that the iranian threat to them is as extensions. >> i would agree that is an unintentional that it would launch a nuclear war. i do not think we can dismiss

the prospect of a nuclear war between iran and israel or the united states. when we think about what led to the relationship between united states and soviet union, which was not all that stable. we came close to nuclear war a couple of times. when we think about what led to stability, almost all of those factors are absent when you think about the balance. israel would have to fear it could not sit back and absorb a nuclear attack and retaliate. it is too small. 3 bombs means the end of the state. israel would have incentives to go first. if you think about it from the iranian point of view, iran would have a small arsenal that could be vulnerable to an israeli first strike that if there is going to be a nuclear war, they will want to go first.

in that situation, where both sides have a first strike incentives, countries are doing things a countries do during a nuclear crisis, like put their weapons on high alert. hiding there is a possibility things could spiral out -- i think there is a possibility things could spiral out of control. >> next question. >> talking about building a coalition, a broad coalition, global opinion, after the call for or iraq in 2003, and the claims of wmd's, yellowcake, what level of intel, how hard would it be to get relatively neutral countries on the side of a coalition and striking iran?

>> start with you. >> as i pointed out before, the iran situation today and the iraq situation in 2003 was very different. we have a much different window as to what is going on with the nuclear program. they are writing very detailed reports every three months. we have a very good sense of what is going on. the inspectors are there. it is not any one country. it is a respected international organization. i think the international community believes the ia when they talk about what iran has on the ground, and experts do these calculations and say, if they made the decision, a year to the material, etc.. in terms of, can, i think we can. we have not really begun. i think that is a mistake. we would have a better idea of what coalition we could build it was part of our diplomatic

strategy. >> permanent members of the military council, it would confirm their worst suspicions about the united states. thee going through sanctions in order to justify a fig leaf around a military strike on iran. it complicates our ability to have diplomacy work, because people would not want to play that game with us, and it would make it more difficult to forge a coalition. the only way to do it is to do with the way we are doing now. let the play -- process play out. make it clear it was not because of of us, but that our demands were shared by the international community. use that to create a coalition.

do i think it would work? i don't know. we have one recent case study. at the end of 2009, after first accepting it, it will allow the u.s. to create an enormous coalition against the iranians in the spring of 2010, the most severe sanctions iran has ever faced by the international community. we are playing it about right. it is not diplomacy, just checking the box, like the bush a administration did, but we actually mean it. the onus is on iran to show they're serious. if they are not serious, then we pivot. >> next question. >> my name is stephen davis. let's introduce another element into this equation. i was visiting the iaea website today and they have an introductory film. one of the commentators was henry kissinger, who said, if we are standing at the podium with 20,000 nuclear weapons under our feet, it is very difficult to ask another nation not to develop one.

about a nuclear-free world, do we not have to be serious about disarming ourselves? >> i think, ultimately, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has commitments. we're committed -- places like iran are committed not to develop nuclear weapons. the united states and others, initially nuclear states, have an obligation to move toward disarmament. the obama administration shares the view that their obligations on both sides. the move forward on new start. not an insignificant political risk. it is thought that some of those cuts go too deep. i don't know if that is true or not. the administration believes that we also have to make good- faith efforts to shrink our arsenal. it does not excuse iran pose a

commitment. sometimes, people ask, doesn't iran have the ability -- the fact of the mattress, iran gave up that right when they signed it. i must want to pull out, that right is ironclad, regardless of what we're doing. >> i think when you put yourself in the position of the leaders in tehran, i think they're probably thinking, would nuclear-weapons serve our interest? can we build them? do we have the industrial capacity? how close are we? how tough are the international sanctions? can we live with these? will the u.s. and israel conduct a military strike? these are the things they're thinking about. it is unlikely they're saying, whether the u.s. has 22 nuclear weapons or 1500 -- i mean, there is this link in international treaty

obligations. i don't think it is something that is playing on the iranian's minds right now. >> yes, sir? >> they just raised this question of north korea. it is hard to argue that iran is more irresponsible than north korea. yet, the bush administration is willing to accept and north korea having nuclear weapons. why are we now -- where were the warmongers when this was going on? why were we willing to accept north korea getting nuclear- weapons and not iran? obviously, one of the elements here, the key element, is israel. i think they are putting

president obama in an extremely difficult position. it is an election year. nobody has mentioned this. the idea that -- everybody knows gas prices are going to skyrocket. it is one of the issues the cost them the election. you're putting him in an extremely difficult position. >> some people think that we are worried about iran's nuclear program as a benefit to israel. iran's nuclear program poses a threat to international peace and security. on the north korea example, in 1994, the clinton administration seriously considered the use of force, had basically decided to do it, and backed off at the last minute. it is not clear whether that was a good decision not.

if you think about what a nuclear-armed north korea has looked like, attacking a south korean war ship that is transferred nanotechnology to syria, burma, maybe other countries, and we have cuts in the range of consequences yet. we could still have a nuclear exchange involving north korea. north korea, pakistan, i think we really should not be concerned. >> on the israel issue, undeniably, israel is a factor in our calculations. i can tell you from someone on the inside, it is not the driving factor of our policy on iran. that is a judgment by this administration and the previous few administrations that an iranian nuclear weapon is a significant threat to u.s. vital national interest. israel matters in shaping certain decisions, but not in

the ultimate course. there has been evidence in the last couple months that this administration is not a prisoner to is really desires. -- israeli desire. how do i know that? if this administration had been a prisoner to those desires, obama would have laid out a clear red lines than he did in the conference. we would have greenblatt an -- greenlit an israeli attack on the iran already instead of telling them not to do it, and we think it is a bad idea. we would of committed to doing it ourselves. this is a viable option. how do i know? half of the republican candidates have suggested green lighting, or doing it jointly, or doing it ourselves. there is a way in which you can be more beholden to the israelis. we see that on c-span and cnn just about every day. at the end of the day, the

administration is making judgments on iran based on u.s. national interests. israel is part -- protecting it as part of our national interests in that part of the world. it is not wrong. it is the way it is. >> my name is gina -- dina. you have a lot of -- i have a lot of friends who fled the country. they're active here in the united states. it seems to me that the biggest enemy for iran and the iranian regime are the iranian people themselves. now, the elections are coming up. the united states does have enough time to move to a diplomatic solution of this problem. it is a huge iranian community. here -- where d.c. the iranian

people fitting in, inviting them to be in the cohesion of iraq against the iranian government? >> we did not talk much about the internal politics in iran. >> i think this administration has been pretty clear about the atrocious human rights record of the iranian regime. it is more vocal in criticizing it and taking action on the sanctions front. i am sure there are folks who believe that more should have been done. as it relates to the question here that we have been talking about in today's discussion, there is not a consensus that the united states should attack iran. there is concern that a u.s. attack or an israeli attack would give the regime in excuse to brutally repressed the opposition. it could rally support all of -- around the hard-liners for some time. it might have those effects. it could have other effects.

beingt see it as productive towards helping the opposition or leading to a short-term regime change. the last point i would make, i think we have to be careful about -- regime change in iran would be good for the iranian people. whether it would solve the nuclear issue is an open question. it would depend on what the regime. the nuclear program is extraordinarily popular in iran. with the -- where the dispute happens is whether it should be weapon is or not. -- weaponized or not. the thing that concerns me about a strike on the nuclear program is that it could convince people who are on the fence about whether iran needs a nuclear deterrent or not that they need one as the only way to prevent iran from being attacked again. i don't want that conversation to happen. i want a different conversation to happen where iran dials back nuclear activities, and then we can continue to hammer them on the human rights record and everything else. at the end of the day, the people will determine whether

the regime goes or not, not external actors dropping bombs. >> the only thing i would add, you point up that a strike on the nuclear facilities could have negative consequences in terms of internal developments in iran. i think that is possible. others have pointed out that you might get this rally around the flag in the short term, where it strengthens the regime, but over time, it could lead to critics criticizing the government. it could weaken the current regime. going back to my point before, we have to compare these options to the alternatives, it might be the case that a strike would strengthen the current regime. i think nuclear weapons would strengthen the regime as well. it would provide them some legitimacy. both of those scenarios, you are possibly looking and a stronger regime. >> before u.s. your question, i want to follow up. president ahmadinejad's term

ends next year. are there election factors in iran that we are not thinking of that could impact the discussions? >> frankly, i think the president -- mark ahmadinejad himself has been marginalized. he has had a fight with the supreme leader of the last couple of years and has lost decisively. not only has he lost, but actually, the presidency itself has been weakened. i do not think the next president is likely to be a game-changer. you do not get to run for president unless the supreme leader agrees you are ok. i guess he thought he was fine,

but not so much afterward. i don't see the 2013 election as being in game changer. it could complicate diplomacy for the reasons domestic politics in heated moment complicates diplomacy. it allows sides to play politics with the issue instead of selling it. it is already having that effect in our country. i don't know why we shouldn't expect it to of the same effect in iran. >> i agree on that point. >> yes? >> i have a comment and then a question. the comment is that negotiating with iran is like the hokey pokey. you are in, you are out. negotiations on the caspian sea are entering another year. we have to take that within context. my question is, one of your points was that in 60 years,

there have only been nine countries that have violated the -- only nine countries that of a non-nuclear. turkey and saudi arabia, also algeria, bahrain, and united arab emirates have all announced nuclear programs. pakistan is now building two more heavy water plutonium processing plants, a second chemical processing plant. within the context, the nine countries in the context of the u.s. special bid competition, now we are in the middle east with the sunni-shia ferocity. does that not change the likelihood of more countries getting nukes? >> we have to be very careful. you mentioned the uae. we should hope everyone develops their program the way the uae has. they have given up the right to

domestic and richmond. there is no possibility for proliferation if they stick to that agreement. a lot of programs have nuclear agreement. that was the bargain. you're allowed a civilian nuclear program. they have built into it the risk of nuclear hedging. it is part of the treaty. you will have factors engage in nuclear hedging. the question is whether they will push that hedging strategy into an active program to develop nuclear weapons. we have not seen that historically. we have seen countries do the hokey pokey of moving forward and back, but not actually go all the way. there were a handful of states that of reversed pretty close to the end. we are not helpful -- helpless to do things. in the event that iran fully consummated its nuclear program, we might be able to use security guarantees and other things. they're not a lot of countries on earth that would like to go

through the experience north korea and iran went through as far as being sanctioned. only a handful of countries are willing to absorb that much pain to get a weapon. i don't know that any of the country's you listed are willing to be the pariah states that iran and north korea are. i think there are a lot of options to address. >> one of the reasons colin is more optimistic than i am is because he says we have never seen it historically. i think i would disagree a little bit. when china was pursuing nuclear capabilities, intelligence estimates said, it could lead to a cascade in asia. we could see other countries develop nuclear weapons. some of those countries did develop nuclear weapons. pakistan and other countries did not. we are likely to see the same thing in the middle east. some of the countries we worry about probably will not get nuclear weapons. i think we will see some proliferation. colin said one of the things we

can do to tamp down the proliferation demand is to provide security guarantees for countries. that is a pretty good increase in commitments to the region. what we would be -- we would have to station u.s. troops. maybe deploy nuclear weapons to make sure we get into any conflict. there things we can do to prevent proliferation. their costs with those as well. >> former state department. ironically, you brought up a point that i wanted to ask

about. with the disclaimer that analogies are very, very dangerous -- why is there not more focus on the idea of a very limited coalition? i am not talking about a whole national security guarantee or a mini nato. one thing is, a lot of those countries in the middle east, even saudi arabia, really does not want to spend its money on nuclear capabilities. they want to be able to assure that they are protected. an idea has been tossed out that seems to make a lot of sense, and that is that we should look at starting to build a coalition, but again, disclaimer about analogies to others, with saudi arabia, with turkey, with the gulf states. remember, in the region, an attack against one is an attack

against any. it has a number of elegant elements to it. obviously, one is the long-term arab-persian conflict, she a, a sunni, there are a lot of reasons far beyond the united states and israel, for the rest of the middle east to want to go off without having to be able to compete with iran or totally cozy up to the united states. why is more not being done on this? it has to be done on a longer- term. it does not have to be a big coalition that requires treaties and these kinds of things. i think it would really get the iranian's attention. is no one doing anything on this? if not, why not?

>> it is a good question. i think there is a lot. part of the problem is we have these three different paths, and we are not properly planning for any of them. it is not clear to me what my strategy is going into these negotiations, what we're willing to offer the iranians. on the deterrent and containment site, that requires real planning. it is hard to prepare when your plan is to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. those are really things that are better developed outside of think tanks and universities. it is difficult for the administration to do that for political reasons. >> diplomatic. the minute that you signal that you are doing intensive

planning on the containment structure inside the pentagon for nuclear-armed id -- iran, you signify to the israelis, we had better strike now. you signify that we're willing to live with a nuclear iran. i am not saying his view -- >> [inaudible] if you attack one of us, you attack all of us. that is not containment. >> in the aftermath of iran getting a nuclear weapon, it is a form of extended deterrence. i have not read all the details of the proposal. he says a smart stuff all the time. i would be very cautious about having a limited club that left a lot of states out. you would signal it is not ok to attack turkey or saudi arabia. we have a bad history historically. we accidentally leave countries

out that did not get invaded. we have to be careful about who is in the club and who is not. i do not think a formal treaty is necessary. you can have a policy in the interest of the united states that we will resist any effort by outside powers to change borders or a tax others with any -- attack others with any means. we already have enough tripwire forces in the region. there would at least be a period of time where they cannot penetrate our missile defenses. it will be a long time before they can hold the united states at risk. we will be able to hold iran at risk for ever. i think our ability to deter iran is a little higher than

people presume. i do not think it would take a radical shift in the posture we have in the region. i would be cautious about going around a formalized route because i think countries did not want to be part formal arrangement. is not their style. >> final question. >> my name is barbara. i have two questions. i was wondering if you think the campaign coming directly from the israeli population -- do you think a campaign like that could change the course of

relations between israel and iran that? if war were to come, what do you think would be the role of -- a lot of them are led now by sanctions that are not exactly pro-israel. >> i think these movements in israel are important. i would say there are several -- similar movements on the palestinian side. i think we should be cautious about too much optimism. if you look at polling, it is a little complicated. it becomes more complicated if you ask the question, would you support unilateral action. they are probably out of step with where the prime minister

is. it would be willing to take action without the united states. as it relates to the arab spring, we do not know. i think we need to be careful about israeli or american military action in the current context because of dynamics. it would allow iran to play the victim. it would be able to reinstate its st. crashed as the champion of the region. -- street cred in the region. an attack would allow them to pull up from the dissent. it would allow islamists and the muslim brotherhood to use a strike against another muslim country to demonize the israelis and the americans.

as populism takes hold in this part of the world more and more, we have to worry about the arabs bring more and more. a lot of people will say they will be clapping if you cut the head of a snake, that may be true. on the streets of cairo and beirut and baghdad and elsewhere, they will not be clapping. will that make things more messy than they are now? probably. how much more? i do not know. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not know what it means for israel. we do not want to wait until israel pacify their ron for that to happen. -- iran for that to happen. that is why you stick with the

diplomatic route as long as it is viable because you want the onus to be on iran, who walked away from the process. it was seen as rejecting an offer to have a peaceful solution. if they did that, their ability to play the victim and like to international public opinion would be under mind. >> we have come to the point where it is time brouwer closing statements. -- it is time for our closing statements. >> i am really pleased we are having this discussion. i wrote an article in foreign affairs laying out the case for the military option on iran and i took a lot of heat for it. part of the reason i wanted to write the article is i was frustrated by what i saw as a lack of a serious debate on what i saw was the most important security issue facing the country. i felt like iran was steadily marching towards nuclear

weapons capability. a lot of people have had their head in the san putting all of their eggs in the sanctions and diplomacy basket. i would be delighted if we can solve this through diplomacy, but i am afraid that we can. some. soon we will have to make a tough choice between acquiescing iran or taking nuclear action. it could be very threatening to u.s. national security without having this discussion. i am delighted simply to have the discussion. there are risks to a strike, i agree with that. we have some time for diplomacy. i agree with that. i think we have less time than colin things. -- thinks. nothing collins said tonight leads me to back away from my

conclusion that if we are faced with a difficult choice, it is the best option. >> i think actually the tone and the assumptions that one brings into this issue are really important. " similarly, we have done this four or five times. we go from city to city doing this. my discomfort comes from the fact that on the one hand i am nervous about adopting worst- case assumptions about the implications of a nuclear iran when i think the argument is more complicated and nuanced lear weapon." never the less we have to be cautious about worst-case assumptions because in a lead up to iraq in 2003, we adopted worst-case assumptions about a

phantom menace. we have to be careful not to do that again. the second thing is i think we have to be careful about having worst-case assumptions about the prospects for diplomacy. we can barely talk ourselves into saying, and that is it. that is the last drop. that meeting did not go well. -- that is the last straw. now it is time for military action. a lot of people who picked up on his arguments and wheeled them about in this town, in congress, on talk shows and others do make that argument. they are looking for any sign that sanctions have failed, not because they want them to succeed but because they want war. we have to be careful about that. we have to be careful about adopting assumptions about how the world will go and what the

aftermath will be like. as i have been involved with the pentagon for a long time. there is an old cliche that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. the world will not go the way that or i say it well. it will go in an uncertain trajectory. in a region that is onyx -- in a region that is extraordinarily unstable. a global economy that is pulling out of the great recession, it is time to be cautious and not fall prey to best case assumptions about how easily the world will go, how much time it will buy. how easy it will be to bottle up iran in the aftermath. reject the worst case assumptions. the good news is, i am not as pessimistic about the mop -- diplomacy as matt is. i do not think there will be a breakthrough in the coming

months, but iran is really hurting. the supreme leader has made moves to give him some freedom of action to dial back the tension a little bit. we will have to see if he is willing to dial back some of the nuclear activities. let's see if we can -- it is not just the iranians that want to buy time. we all need to slow the program down to buy time over the next year or two or so to reach a final resolution to the issue. at this point i would basically agree with president obama. there is no military solution short of invasion or occupation that creates a permanent solution to this problem, only a diplomatic outcome we should give every opportunity for diplomatic success before rushing into war. >> let's thank our guests tonight. thank you so much. thank you for joining us.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the >> iran and the five members of the security council, britain, france, russia, germany, have scheduled talks over the iranian program set to begin this friday in turkey. >> today, stephen moore, wall street editorial board member,

and joins us to talk about the budget proposals, the buffet will, and tax policy. then and powered -- howard kurtz discusses their daily download website and the use of social media in the presidential campaign. and barry kluger talks about efforts to cover parental bereavement. "washington journal" is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. live on c-span, international monetary fund manager christine lagarde is at the brookings institution discussing the imf in giving her assessment of the global economy. that is at 11:00 a.m. eastern. later, afghanistan's ministers talk about the training of the afghan army and police force as

well as counter-terrorism efforts. they're speaking at the center for strategic and international studies at 2:30 eastern on c- span. paid tributeburg to sandra day o'connor, celebrating her confirmation to the high court. she was nominated by president reagan in 1981. retired in 2006 after serving for 25 years. >> could evening. i am president of the supreme court historical society. i am delighted to welcome to the celebration on the 30th anniversary of the first term of sandra day o'connor on the u.s. supreme court. [applause]

we are honored to have with us this evening justice o'connor, justice ruth ginsberg, sonya stoudamire and elena kagan. this is the first time they have come together for a public program and we're grateful they have done sort to join in this celebration. we also want to thank the ceo of the freedom forum for making this magnificent space available to us. prior to being ceo has a history with the supreme court historical society dating back to his time as an minister of assistant.dt. --

frank was a president from 2002 to 2008. our panel this evening consists of the four women that come up to date, have served on the supreme court. even to summarize each of their careers would take far too long, so i will be brief. wasice sandra day o'connor nominated to the court by president ronald reagan on july 7, 1981, and confirmed by the senate on september 22, 1981, to succeed justice stuart. she retired on january 31, 2006. justice ruth bader ginsburg was appointed to the court by president william clinton on june 14, 1993 and appointed and confirmed by the senate and assume her role on august 10, 1993.

the justice sonya sotomayor was appointed by president barack obama on may 26, 2009 and assumed her position on august 8, 2009. the following year, justice elena kagan was appointed to court by president barack obama on may 10, 2010 and assumed her position on august 7, 2010. we are honored and grateful to bring all of you together to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the ground-breaking tenure as it began of justice sandra day o'connor. i would ask everyone to turn off cell phones and blackberries. i would turn the program over to jim. >> thank you very much. we are delighted that the supreme court historical society is having the celebration of justice 0th anniversary of for appointment to the supreme court here at the theater in the

museum. we are very honored to have justice o'connor with us. we are pleased that justices ginsberg, sotomayor york, and justice kagan are with us on this very special night. it is special because it is the fourth anniversary of the opening of the museum. we could not have done better to celebrate that. we do not have a quorum, but we have enough to grant [unintelligible] [laughter] i do not know if there is anything you might want to consider. we will move on to questions. yource o'connor, nomination as the first woman to serve on the supreme court of the united states 30 years ago was certainly historic. it was also a very closely- guarded secret. there are memoirs of them hiding you and a clandestine 9 meeting at dupont circle. meeting at dupont circle.