up, justice sandra day o'connor testifies about the importance of civics education. then representative chris van hollen talks about the impact of the ryan budget on the economy. and then that is followed by the president and the first ladyn the bus tour in iowa. >> retired supreme court justice sandra day o'connor testified before a committee last month on teaching civics in school. she has advocated for civics education since retiring from the supreme court in 2006. she is a founder and chairman of the board for icivics, an online project for kids interested in learning about six. -- civics.

>> before we get started, i want to say it is a delight that sandra day o'connor is here. i am wondering, all of you who

are students in this room, can you please stand up so that justice can see? not bad, huh? [applause] in the past, we have had justice breyer andd justice justice scalia were here. we have had many schools around the country that have the dvd of that hearing. people stop me on the street who have seen the dvd. it is a chance to learn. it is a learning experience. we tried to do that periodically

to hear. justice o'connor was appointed to the supreme court by president reagan in 1981. she served on the court until her retirement in 2006. i recall we talked about this in the back with barry goldwater from arizona. justice o'connor would make a great justice. he was right. she has been a leading voice for the portance of civics education. he currently serves on the board of icivics -- she currently serves on the board of icivics. justice, you are pleased to see the number of students?

>> [inaudible] i think it would be instructive for young people to have a chance to do that. >> and justice, you are bringing a lot of students to washington. we are streaming this on our website. i think discussions like this serve our democracy. as public officials, we owe it to all americans to be transparent on what we do. we can show how our government works and how we are guided by the constitution. that constitution served over the years to make our nation more inclusive and our effort to be a more perfect union.

a senator was doing his own out reach what students. -- outreach with students. it is quite a number. two of them are political. the third branch judicially independent by design. both of the political branches come together in the process. it is necessary to carry out their roles in our democracy. i have had a chance to vote on every desk this for the last 37 years. >> oh, my.

>> justice kennedy and justice scalia and justice breyer. in the zero wake of the sitting chief justice, -- the wake of the sitting chief justice, there is rhetoric about the chief justice. he has been called a traitor for having betrayed george bush. these kind of attacks reveal the misguided notion that justice's zero some allegiance to the president hu appointed them or to a political party -- justices own some allegiance to the president who appointed them or to a political party.

i have known the justices nominated by both parties. i did not vote to confirm individuals to the bench. i can find every justice i voted in which i agreed and disagreed with. no one should demand political allegiance from any judge, whether nominated by a democrat or by a republican. as many sitting censuses have noticed, -- justices have noticed, we have the right as americans, including the supreme court. i find the opinion of justice ginsburg to college are

congressional under the spending clause. it reveals a complete misunderstanding of our system to attack the chief justice and saying he has not followed a political party or showed allegiance see. -- allegiance. she served on both the state bench and on the highest court in the land. at the last justice not to come from the judiciary monastery. she has traveled the world to teach emerging democracies about the importance of the rule of law. she focuses on the importance of civics education.

as i told to privately, barry goldwater was such a good friend. at his request, i moved into his old office and i have been there for 30 years. he would blush -- you would blush it your all of the good things he has said about you -- if you heard all the good things he said about you. >> i remember a hearing we have lasted that was very viable with justice scalia. barry m. valuable. it is very valuable to have you here as well -- it was very voluble. it is very valuable to have you here as well. you are the very first supreme

just as i have ever had the chance to vote for. my first vote to the supreme court. i can say this looking back on on your years of service and performance justify the confidence that the senate placed in you. we would like to believe that our judges whose independence is guaranteed by the constitution will based only on the constitution and not on their policy preferences. judicial independence was established to make the courts independent of the other branches and independent of popular the you. it is not designed to make judges independent -- and not he popular view. this is a view that i believe has set odds with the current

reality and the history of our country. the leading reason for the so- called attack on judicial independence is often judges themselves. only a few weeks before the court pass health care decision, the supreme court public approval of the court performance was 44-36 margin. but the article reported that after the ruling, that decision some have speculated was issued in part to reduce political opposition in the court and has appeared to accomplish exactly the opposite result if you want to go by that poll. the article states that most americans believe the decision was based mainly on the justice's personal political views.

only 30% of americans say the decision was made mainly on the analysis. for myself, i respect the decision, even if i am disappointed by that decision. i question no one of's motives, but i do not think the poll results would be different. if only the public had a better understanding of the court. i think the poll reflects that the public does have reason to suspect that politics enters into some justices' decision. they accept the decision anyway as shown by a polling. two-thirds were unpopular with a population when they were decided. all the unfortunate, this perception should not be a cause for alarm. as long as it does not lead to threats of violence, threats of impeachment, or threats to in

prison judges for the ruling. such as when andrew jackson refused to be bound on the constitutionality of the bank agreed the united states or when abraham lincoln refused to accept it because it reflected political bias. or when there roosevelt had a restriction of the power of the courts and gives to the people the of the mentafundamental aut.

or when roosevelt tried to pack the supreme court tried to strike down new legislation. let us keep everything in perspective. it is not a violation of judicial independence for senators to criticize court rulings that he or she believes to be incorrect. it is not a violation of judicial independence for a senator to conduct oversight of the judiciary. there are corporate ways to ensure accountability. -- they are appropriate ways to ensure accountability. it is check and balance. it could be jeopardized when the president of the u.s. in his state of union speech to state a case in front of justices when the cannot respond. the president publicly misstates

the process of judicial review and claims that the court's legitimacy and a particular justice's legacy will be tainted unless the court decides the case the way that the president wants that case decided. judicial independence is certainly weekend if justices give in to those attacks rather if does is give in to those attacks rather than remain independent. all citizens in a democracy benefit from the participation of informed and active citizens. i think icivics site is a good one. citizens can challenge laws unconstitutional ground in state as well as federal courts. it should also say that a trial held for violation of state criminal law claims to violate

the federal constitution would be held in state and not federal court. i have supported greater understanding of our constitutional system, i do not believe the federal government shld develop a mandate civics standard. i do not think the framers of the constitution thought they had given authority to impose such standards. justice o'connor, and look forward to listening to your views. >> thank you. >> and justice o'connor, we are talking about icivics. as i look at this, the man in the front looks very much like a grand sum of mind. -- grandson of mine. please, we welcome you here. the floor is yours. >> thank you, senator leahy.

i will welcome questions that you and the other senator has to direct a conversation. you brought up the subject of icivics. it is a website that relies on games to teach young people how government works. we have a wonderful group of skilled teachers of middle and high school levels who have helped advise us on the topics that we should cover on the next icivics game and so forth. they have helped us in developing the website. we have attempted to develop games that enhance the ability and teachers to teach young people how our government works. i went to school and a long time ago. i went to school in el paso,

texas. my parents lived in a ranch that was too remote for school. i lived with my grandparents during the school term in el paso and went to school there. i remember having a lot of civics class is based on texas history. i got pretty sick and tired of it. i thought it was miserable. i hope today's civics teachers will be able to make it more interesting than i found it in those days. that is one of the reasons for developing the icivics site a series of games that young people can play. this system has worked very effectively. recently in texas, there has to

do a study of icivics through the education department to see the text of this to see if it is effective the students. the study produced exceedingly encouraging results. i was thrilled to get the report about what they found from the use by students of that website and the games in it. i am encouraged by it. it shows me that young people need to know how our government works and how they are part of it. it is self-evident. in the school's today, it is not widely taught. young people want to know how to be effective. they want to know their roles as citizens and how to make things happen at the local level, the state level, and the national level. icivics tries to do that and

help young people develop their own proposals and learn in the process about how government works. i think the effort is effective and appreciated. i have chair people in all 50 states, including in vermont. it is doing well, i think. i welcome feedback from you and others. your constituents on how you all think how we can improve on how we are doing. schools can use the program at no charge. that is important in today's circumstances where money is not often available for schools to develop new programs. but i hope that your constituents will report back to

you occasionally on the effectiveness of icivics and keep you informed. i welcome your suggestions as you have them when we go forward. i hope i will hear back from you if you have any suggestions for us. >> thank you. again, i appreciate you doing this. we will be sure to get some feedback from vermont. >> absolutely. the town where my ancestors settled after the revolution. it has not grown much, i am afraid. [laughter] >> very special people coming from that part of the state, including my wife of nearly 50 years. justice o'connor, you have

commented on how the tax injustices can be applied to judicial independence. -- attacks on justices can impact judicial independence. >> it is unfortunate. comments like that demonstrate only too will the lack of understanding that some of our citizens have about the role of the judicial branch. i think the framers of our federal constitution did a great job in understanding themselves that the judicial branch needed to be able to make independent decisions on the legitimacy and

the lawfulness of actions at the state and federal level when they are properly raised in court. the framers did a really good job in that regard. it is not every state that has followed the federal model. under the federal model, judges are not elected. they are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. in many states, that is the process, but not all. many states have popular election of judges. the result of that has been the need for candidates to raise money for their election campaign. i think that has a corrupting influence on the selection of judges. it is disappointing to me to see as many states as there are if

using judicial elections. i hope more states will follow the federal model and have a system of judicial appointments. many of the states that have these have a process of confirmation or selection that involves public input. that is fine. but i think the federal model has been a good one for the states. >> i agree. that is a model that we follow in vermont. it works very well. it has taken politics completely out of our judicial system. we recently had a new federal district judge. her name was recommended from our bipartisan screening board. i recommend her name to the president hu.

interesting enough -- i am recommended her name to the president. interesting enough, to this day i have do not have the slightest idea of where the politics are. while a judge might be and should be appreciative, as you were up president reagan possible nomination, your allegiance is to the law and not the president who nominated you. >> the allegiance of every federal judge as to the constitution of the u.s. and the laws that are adopted by congress. that allegiance, i think,

enables judges to resolve the cases. they rely on presidents. we follow the british model of years ago in which a case resolved by the nation's highest court, the principles established will be followed by the lower courts in the future until the courts to change the models ordered the rule. i think the system works quite well. it's served us well in the u.s. through the years, i think. we have a good federal court system over all, in my opinion. >> let me ask you about that. during the primaries earlier this year, there were a couple of candidates who said that those of us in political office

should be more involved in the court. one even suggested eliminating the circuit court of appeals. he disagreed with one of the opinions. we have heard others say that we have the power and the courts in the supreme court that any time we have a disagreement, we would have a hearing and we move that. i remember standing side by side with barry goldwater on the floor to fight an effort by one senator. the case is where the water do you agree with that?

>> i certainly do. i think our system is a good one. sometimes a court, a federal court, for example, will resolve simple issue in a way that not everyone likes. certainly in a body like that u.s. senate comprised of republicans and democrats and occasionally an independent, you will have some disagreement among members of this very body about whether a particular ruling of a federal court is correct or the best ruling that the court could have made. obviously there will be differences of opinion. under our system, and issue that is divisive will sometimes come up again in the courts in a different posture. you have related issues.

over time, the courts themselves will have a chance to review the president's and the effective -- the precedence and effectiveness. the system has served the system quite well, i think. >> one last question. let me ask you this -- with all this question about diversity -- you were the first woman to serve on the supreme court. i praised president reagan at the time for that. diversity is more than just that. diversity of backgrounds. you have had a lot of experience. today diversity in court, we

have some wonderful people. they come from the same backgrounds. do you think we should push for more diversity? >> i think over the nation posset history, we have had a very diverse group of judges on the court. history, we have had a very diverse group of judges on the court. people who have served on the federal district courts and appeals -- that is not a requirement. the president is free to choose the two people with very different backgrounds. there is no requirement that the person appointed be a lawyer. i think it would have it pretty

hard time if they do not have legal training, but there is no requirement in the selection of a justice. in the first 100 years, i think we have a lot more diversity on the court. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> you did bring up the election of state justices. is what you said leaning more towards the federal system than what the states do? >> well, many states still have appointment system for state judges. it includes a system where after many years on the bench, the judge goes on the ballot in the

state where voters can decide whether to retain the judge, yes or no. that is the system we have in arizona. that is the system that i helped develop in my prior years in arizona. voters have a chance to look at the record of the judge and say, do you want to keep this judge? yes or no? not many have been turned out of office in that system. i think it is a perfectly balanced system for a state to adopt. the federal system does not have that. you did not have a system where after a few years on the supreme court of the voters in america can have a chance to say whether justice should be retained or not. i think the federal system has worked very well. i am not proposing any change. but those states to use retention elections have had

pretty good luck with them. very few people are turned out. >> i want to refer to an article from 2008 that you wrote, "i regret the threats to judicial independence seemed to be recurring with a record frequency. for their decisions on various issues." i do not find fault with what you wrote, but i want to explore with you some situations and see whether they could pose threats to judicial independence. could judicial independence be threatened if the state had a state of unit address in front of justices who were not in a position to respond and criticized supreme court decisions? >> i do not know if it threatens judicial independence. it is not something as citizen

expects to here in the president of's state of union message -- president's state of union message. it is unusual. >> another question -- could judicial independence be jeopardized if the president misstates a doctrine of judicial review and claim a particular ruling would harm the court's legitimacy and claim that a particular justice's legacy would be tainted unless he decides the case in a manner that the president presumably wants? >> if there is a pending decision at the supreme court and a president were to express views along those lines, it would be surprising.

it is unusual. to speak out at some higher political level either at the state and national level about a decision on a pending case. i guess it will happen, but it is not what we expect and it is not ideal. >> last week, could traditional independence be jeopardized if a justice decides it is in a different way than his original and you do to presidential pressure or that the court would sustain political damage? >> i am sure that many things go through the minds of a justice in a pending case were a tough issue has to be decided. the justice may learn things that cause the justice to shift

the tentative outcome in some fashion. you can continue to learn up until you have signed on to some decision. i would not preclude that. i think it is always possible. it is not often that it occurs. >> since i still have time, what would you think are the most important elements of the court system as students should learn? it corrects the system needs to give -- >> this is dumb knees to give some independence of the judge making -- >> the system ne some independence of the judge making decisions. to do so, fairly and independently. that is the concept.

that is what i think the average citizen should be able to understand is the concept and trust that is what is going to happen. >> i will make a comment. i do not know where you are on this. the chairman and i promote cameras in the courtroom. we do it because we think there is a lot of mystery about the judicial branch of government and the education of the people by having more people have access to the court room would be a very good thing to do. i would like to take my last minute to advocate for cameras in the courtroom. >> i would advocate for that. i am all for it. >> i yield back my time. >> only speak if you are in favor of it. [laughter]

>> and then i'd better keep my mouth shut. [laughter] you andustice o'connor, i have noted the other for a long time. it is refreshing to have you here. i respect your view anyway. i have a soft spot in my heart for former prosecutors as you know. >> thank you for being here. to the appreciate it. when we have a confirmation hearing for elena kagen, i spoke about your background. before the age of 14, you were able to use a rifle, a herd cattle, and ride a horse. >> absolutely. i lived in a very remote land. everyone had to be able to do

everything as soon as they were old enough to do it. >> you came from such humble beginnings. you were able to achieve so much in this country. i wanted to start with that. where did you think the reason is that we are seeing such a decline in civics education? how do we improve it? >> frankly, part of it is because we have learned to our dismay that our american students when tested on math and science are not doing as well students of an equivalent age for many other countries. i think that distresses us because our country has been pretty advanced in math and science. we do not want to see our students lag behind. we need an effort to increase education in those areas. it has resulted in the dropping

of civics courses. there are only so many hours in the day and schools have to concentrate on something. they might do more math and science and less on civics. i would like to be sure that we continue to teach civics distance. my own concentration has been at the middle school -- teach civics to students. my own experience at the middle school -- i think it is important. students want to know how government works, how their city, county, state, nation works. the want to be a part of it. icivics teaches them by way of games. the young people play a role and they learned. it is very effective.

in many cases, it is being used in 50 states. students using it can learn how to take a project and get it through some city council level or some kind of county level or even a state legislative level. it is great when they do. the earlier you learn how government works and how you can be part of it, the better it is. >> i agree. my daughter is 17. one of my favorite project she did is that she interviewed a senator for an hour. i think it was about a 50-page power point presentation for her class. >> that is great. >> it is very good. i come from a state where we

have very high voter turn out. it is such a value in our state to get involved. i think it is a major problem of the distance the public feels from the government. as a former prosecutor, we would find that it was not always the result in a case that matters to people, but how they are treated through the system. if the understand what is going on, they trust the system. we did a survey on this. if you're not feeling them in on what happened and they have no understanding, they feel mistreated by the system. i appreciate your emphasis. i look forward to working with you on this. i have some other questions. one is on a supreme court nomination. think we can do to improve them?

i think there are still important for the public. what can be done? perhaps it is miserable from the point of the nominee. -- >> it is miserable from the point of the nominee. for the public, it might be the only chance for them to see a nominee and have some appreciation of their style and their manner and how well the answer the question and to have some understanding of the process. it really does matter to the public. i think the system in that regard works very well. >> what did think of the nominee asking questions s? to me, i know people want to have a chance, but it seems very

political in terms of it. >> it is. that is that nature of it. you are the political branch of government here. >> my favorite one was one of the people that came on. he had known her when she was 12. what was she like when she was 12? he said, she was very judicious. [laughter] maybe we could change that part of the process. it seemed very pro and con. >> it would be hard to do. you have a vote at the end. members expressed their view. that is hard to change. >> one last thing. i know you have been a vocal advocate on the judicial elections. in we have seen elections in

recent years. are there any reforms you could suggest? >> this is very important. i think the federal model of federal election is the best model. some states have followed it, but not all. in a number of states, they still have a totally elective process for selecting judges. i think that is very unfortunate. it means raising money for campaigns. there is no way to be comfortable with that in the judicial scheme of things. it is not good to have judges that you know who have had to take campaign contributions from certain interests. it is a worry. i hope that more and more states will follow the federal model of not having judicial elections. many state, in fact my own, have

intentional elections periodically. they are there for some time. the judge's name goes on the ballot. the voters can vote on whether they keep the judge on the ballot. they're not running against anyone. that seems to have worked fairly well. not many judges are removed in that process. but it is one way of having the voters involved to some degree. it seems to have worked to some extent. >> very good. thank you for being here. >> i am glad to be here. >> thank you senator lee. >> i did not say you come in. i'm sorry. >> i am easy to forget. it is a pleasure to have you with us. i remember when you would ask my father questions from behind the

bench. i never thought i would be sitting behind a different bench and asking you questions. >> your father did a really great job. we miss him. >> thank you in. >> i agree with that. >> we miss him. he was a proud arizonan. >> i used to see him in the state senate and in committee hearings. he would come in and present materials on various issues affecting the state. he was effective in that regard as well. he really was an amazing man. >> that is good to know. thank you. i want to follow up with you on the economy made about retention elections. you indicated that the impact -- the tendency to politicize the state judicial system that

those elections would have is limited that they tend not to result in the removal of the judicial officer. >> not very often. >> is there a possibility that they might nonetheless have some politicizing a faeffect? is there a chance there might affect the judge's decision making process? >> well, i guess there is always a chance. i prefer a system that does not have elections at all, but many states have the retention election. at a minimum, it gives the voters the opportunity to say, yes, i am satisfied with this- and i vote to retain this judge, or the reverse. not many are removed. >> one critical difference between the retention election and another type of election is

that it is not tested. >> that is right. there is not a lot of campaign contribution being raised. >> it typically require something of a supermajority vote. >> it depends on the state. >> that is right. >> what about the judicial nominating commissions that are within states? i believe you have been an advocate in what has sometimes been referred to as the missouri approach. members meet and give advice to the governor on whom to appoint. do you support that model? >> yes, i do. it is a model that i help support in my home state of arizona. it has worked well. i think it is a pretty decent model. >> is there an argument to be made that elections like that

might insulate the governor from the political process in a way that is not helpful and less accountable to the voters? >> i have not seen it that way. the governor needs to make the appointment and say, yes, i will consider these names and this is who i will pick. i think it has worked out all right. >> yes. in my state, i believe the governor has the option to reject entire slate. >> that is true in my state, too. if the governor believes he did not get any good names, he can reject the whole batch. >> i think i heard to say a minute ago that you think the federal system is the best model. just for the federal or for ou - >> that is up to each state to

decide on the level of voter participation that you need to have to make this system work for your state. there are some mixed models that most states seem to have where voters have a retention election. we do not have that at the federal level. >> right. >> but if the state thinks it helps, fine. it does not seem to do much damage. it is ok. if the voters in a state approve of that, i think it is all right. >> ok. but you are fine with the federal model the way it is? >> that is correct. >> with a state system gets bad -- i know of your concerns with the states that have contested partisan elections to fill the vacancies at the onset.

i think it is difficult to reconcile that with the need for judicial independence. when you have a state system that follows that approach and a state system that apparently is in a properly influenced from time to time in a destructive way, do you think there is ever a reason for the federal government to consider intervening? or is it up to the state? >> it is up to the state. most states, if you are going to consider something that affects a stick at large, they will have an opportunity to hear from voters on the proposal and have some debate at the state level. that is good. >> but you would not regard that as a due process concern of the sort that would warrant federal legislation requiring states to do it one way or the other? >> no, i do not think so.

we left the states free to choose their own method of judicial selection. >> right. i certainly agree with that. finally, you were a long time advocate of federalism while on the supreme court. a strong believer in the fact that there is a difference between state power and federal power. >> yes. >> we have to respect that for our system to operate correctly. what would you advise to federal lawmakers about how best to protect that system? and the distribution of power between state government on one hand and the federal on the other? >> well, all members of this body, the senate, come from one of the 50 states. you're all representative of your states.

you have experience in the allstate on what the borders care about in terms of judicial election. i am sure all of you have had that. i do not think i need to give any advice on this. >> we do get advice from time to time. >> all right. >> thank you, the justice. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. i told you privately before, i agree with justice o'connor's reference to your father. we have a senator from connecticut, a former general attorney of the state. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former attorney general for some 20 years, i am a very strong believer in federalism. i would agree with senator lee

that we get advice, but i would also say that we need advice. any ideas you have on that score -- but also, i want to focus on a point senator grassley made in his earlier remarks. we dismiss poll numbers when the results do not suit us, but they're still reflective of something happening. the reason we are here is because of the need to educate the public about what you did for many years with such distinction and dedication in serving on the u.s. supreme court. we have a reverence if not respected institution and the need to preserve the legitimacy

and credibility of the institution. i wonder if you can give us your assessment as to why there has been this decline in the public's approval or respect for the institution? >> i wish i knew. i did not conduct the polls. i am not sure. i have read some articles about the polling that took place and the argument being made that perhaps the decline -- the percentage of u.s. voter approval of the supreme court historically has been hired then of the other two branches. in a very recent months, it seems to have declined rather substantially. this suggestion has been made that that began with the bush-

gore decision. i have no idea if that is correct in the assessment of the polling. it was a very tense case that involved holdovers from a very close election. people felt deeply about it. perhaps that was the tipping point of the decline. i hope it will be temporary. the supreme court functions extremely well. as a look worldwide, we can be proud of our court. it has served the nation well. by and large, it is a marvelous institution. i would think over time opinion would turn upward again. i certainly hope so. i would expect that. >> i would agree with to

certainly in the assessment of the supreme court's work and in the hope that public approval will increase over time. as somebody who has done arguments in the court and has been a law clerk in the work and watch and observe the court, i think the public often simply does not see the work that the court does. by and large it, it is day to day work that is much more mundane and complicated. i wonder whether increasing public access to the courts -- court? cameras in the >> i know you were asked that. [laughter]

>> it is important to remember every word said in that court is transcribed and available that same night. if anyone paris it is. you have it, in hand. it is not that there is a lack of ability to know what is going on. is there. it is just, do we have to have it on camera and on the television, or is it enough that it can be available that very night and you can read it? i guess it boils down to that. i am a reader. do not ask me, probably. i tend to read more than i watch television. >> i am not going to comment on reading of versus television. everyone has his or her own style of learning. in light of the prevalence of

television and the the impact, the powerful effect, the visual portrayal, i wonder whether you think that it might be worth considering opening at least certain arguments to a broader view and, if not that, whether there is some way of increasing the potential attendance at supreme court arguments? after all, the numbers of people permitted in the courtroom is very small compared to the -- >> it is limited. the courtroom is not all that large. you'll never have a huge crowd that will fit in the courtroom. there are some adjacent chambers where you can hear it. but not see it. i guess this is a discussion that is going to continue for a while. you have members of the quartet

present who are not at all comfortable with televising the proceedings. i think that if and when a change is made it will probably be more likely to be made when members of the courts are willing to accept that. >> some members of the court have sat where you are right now and said, in the fact, and i am taking great license, with their remarks, in effect, not over my dead body. that is how he meant they were in opposition to televising the court hearings. i think that, if i may respectfully suggest, you are in a unique position because not only are you a highly respected member of the court, but you also have the perspective of many years in different branches and at the state level and so forth.

your opinion would carry great weight if and when you are willing to set forth. >> my opinion is there should be general agreement that that is a good move to make. if there is severe opposition coming from the court itself, that is a source of concern, i think. it is best if everybody is in it sink on at that kind of move. >> i want to thank you for being a year today, for honoring us with your presence, and for your many years of extraordinary work for our justice system. my time has expired, but i really think that your presence and your testimony have jobs to enhance education. >> thank you, senator. i have been spending enormous time on my civics effort to educate young people how our government works and how they can be part of it. i will say that i think that the method we are using with the

games is extremely effective. we had a test at baylor university -- they came back with extraordinarily good reviews of the effectiveness, which is encouraging in the extreme. we will continue to develop additional games on somewhat different topics to keep people informed and engaged. it works with young people. i am excited about it. it would be wonderful if, when you speak to schools in your state, you could encourage them to use it. it does work. >> i would be honored and delighted to do it. very much so. i hope that we can follow up as members of the committee and then more about how we can do that. >> i have managed to keep it free. with today's costs and changing programs, that has been

important. >> free is good. >> i think so to. >> mr. chairman, i want to note that one justice who came before this committee, justice kagan, said they wanted it televised. so maybe we will see that change to refer to over signed -- time. a thank-you. >> we had the debate of televising -- i do not know if you were here or not. we had some who were vehemently against it. somewhere in favor of it. others who could go either way, i think. notwithstanding some grandstanding since then, it has been a good thing for the american public to see how we deliberate. thank you for being here. before you came, you know there were a lot of students in the

room. that is no doubt in relation to the justice and civil courts. we have a lot of students in the room. go ahead, sir. >> justice o'connor, it is great to have you with us. -- i.s.o. tree believe, having trouble around the world -- i so truly believe, having traveled around the world, i am more convinced of the precious nature of the rule of law in america than i have ever been. >> absolutely. it matters. we have been promoting that since the breakup of the soviet union. i think that the american guard reserves -- deserves some credit. when the soviet union began to break up, lawyers gathered together and serve as unpaid volunteers in many of these countries to help develop

judicial systems and the notion of the rule of law. >> i could not agree more. i would just say, i will remember, after the i iraq invasion, being with general petraeus, he had established a court, found judges, appointed lawyers and have trowels like we do. >> yes. >> -- trials like we do. >> yes. >> you know that it takes many years, decades, even centuries to create the kind of legal system we are blessed to have in the united states. >> it does. you cannot do it overnight or in a year or even two or three years. it takes long term development. >> i am of the view that the court needs to maintain its

independence, its attachment from politics, as much as it possibly can. to the extent that justices are concerned, cameras might be load that -- a road that even a little bit and put more political spin on the careful legal work they do -- i support the court in not having cameras in the courtroom live. i would just say that i fundamentally think it is a decision left to the judicial branch, not the legislative branch. i remember being in the chair when robert byrd spoke. he would come down on friday at 11:00 and make speeches pretty often. that was my time to preside. he made a speech about textbooks. he discussed democracy and the

republic, and the differences between the two, and how the text books had not properly delineated the difference. his closing line was that it was touchy-fee lee twaddle in our textbooks. the extent to which you are working to help our young people understand this magnificent legal system that we have, i thank you very much. i would pursue this a little further -- to me, the most pernicious thing that could be taught to young people is that the courts are not independent adjudicator is of discreet legal problems. that they are somehow a part of the political process and their rulings are based on political stresses and pressures and views of justices -- this could erode

the kind of respect that americans should give to the court. is that a concern for you? >> very much so. i agree with you completely. it is best to maintain the independence of the judicial branch. that is what the framers designed. it has worked quite well out the federal level. we need to try to maintain it at the state level as well. i happen to think that holden judicial elections in states is not the best way to go. that gets too much political influence in there and campaign contributions. that is dangerous. we do not need to do that. >> i can see that concern. i'm not sure i share it, but i certainly understand it. it is a valid concern. the constitution contemplates that the courts would be independent adjudicator is. i was pleased when justice roberts referred to it as an

independent, neutral umpire, like in the ballgame. the umpire does not take sides but does its best every day to call strikes. i think that is a image or metaphor that is valid and that we should push. there are times when people on both sides think the court does not do that. >> i am sure. >> they think the court has allowed personal, it is logical, or political insights to impact -- ideological, or political insights to impact decision making. do you agree that justice is should guard against that and live in the oath to be a judge under the constitution and the loss of the united states? >> of course i do. i served on that court for 25 years.

i entered it without a lot of inside knowledge, but with respect for the structure the framers developed. i left after 25 years with the knowledge and understanding that it works remarkably well along those lines. i think we have been fortunate. >> i think, my personal view is that the great danger to the independence of the american judiciary would be a belief on the part of the american people that it is not adhering to that role, but is using the power to interpret the words of statutes in the constitutions to rejigger the constitution to advance an agenda. that would be a great tragedy if that were to happen, if people were to lose confidence.

with regards to criticize in the courts, i believe, an american citizen has a right to question the court, but i believe we should do it respectfully. some of the criticism i have seen from the congress has been over the top, but i would set that, in my view, if a nominee comes before this judiciary committee for confirmation and the they are not philosophically committed to the limited role of a judge or the record indicates they are not, i cannot give them license -- that is my standard. in the range of disagreement on how to interpret laws, if you are outside that, i should not give you a lifetime appointment.

good people can disagree. sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not about where that line should be drunk. i do agree that congress has a role to try to ensure that the judiciary remains a neutral umpire, would you not agree? >> yes. the senate plays a key role in the overall process in terms of agreeing that the out set who will be serving and who will not. >> i would conclude by saying how much i appreciate your interest in educating the next generation. >> yes. >> i am convinced that we are not fully appreciative of the uniqueness of the wonderful legal system we have and how it is unlike almost any nation in the world. it has served us magnificently. it has treated our growth,

prosperity, and freedom. if we have misconceptions about how the legal system works, i think it could endanger -- thank you, justice o'connor, for sharing your thoughts with us. >> thank you. supreme court justices have come before us. it is partly a educational sen. -- educational think. -- thing. the views the here and some other countries are kind of unopened -- i opener. one nation had a very totalitarian former governor and -- a government that moves towards democracy. a group of their leaders came to see me. they said, is it true that in your country sometimes people

sue the government? i said, yes, it happens all the time. they said, is it true that sometimes the government loses? i said, it often happens. they said, did you replace the judge -- and do you replace the judge? when i explained, it was like the cartoon where a lightbulb goes on. they realize that we really are different. you and the icivs web site -- the majority of supreme court justices in the game supreme a decision are women. >> that is my fault. [laughter] family camey wife's from canada. in canada, the majority of the supreme court are women.

>> the chief justice in canada is a woman. they have historically had more women than we have. >> that is right. to what extent do you think diversity on the court or anywhere in the top of our branches increases public confidence? >> i think it does. our citizens like to look at the u.s. senate and see some diverse faces, skin color, etc. -- they like that at the judicial level as well. four courts of record that have multiple members. i think it gives the citizens some confidence. >> in an interview a few years ago, you noted that statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence. people do. >> wright. >> what people are you referring to? >> the judges, for one thing,

and the voters to in the states put in a system that enables the citizens to have confidence in that system. >> describe the system -- i will describe the system in vermont. the governor appoints the judges. the legislature votes consent. after a period of years, the legislature has a vote on a retention. >> yes. >> i -- most of the time they are retained. a system like that, where the legislature -- >> is one step removed with the public. it can work if the state is status -- is satisfied with it. if you can set it up that way, it would be preferred. most states that have retention

elections are for the people to the voters. >> that would be the time where people raise money for campaigns, is it not? >> normally it is just one name up for retention, without being contested at some level. there would be no need for campaign money. >> that is a good point. the a few years ago you interviewed justice john paul stevens. this goes back to some of the questions on the confirmation -- you said that it came out that sometimes the confirmation hearing, you are answering questions and issues come up and you may have a different view at the time the issue comes up. is that a fact?

>> that is a fact. >> had you had that happen to you? >> 's. i do not remember specifically. >> -- possibly. i do not remember specifically. >> would you agree with me that it would be a mistake in the confirmation process that we should be able to expect that we will get a very specific answer in how you will vote on a case five years from now? >> yes. i think that is probably not a very good question to even asked a prospective justice. >> is it valid to ask questions of one's judicial philosophy? >> absolutely. >> and their background? >> absolutely. >> center blumenthal, did you have anything else? >> no.

>> again, the two of you, would all of the students who are here stand up? i think this is great. >> you still have a lot to are listening. that is good. [laughter] >> justice o'connor, i thank you. i want to thank all of you who are here. justice o'connor, i thank you very much. >> thank you, senator leahy. thank you, senators for iinterest and presence. it yet suggestions of telling people in your state to use the civics program, i hope you will. i think it will help us. >> i have some grandchildren who will get a chance. >> i do, too. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[conversation] [inaudible conversation

[inaudible conversation] >> in 12 days, coverage of the

democratic convention on c-span. continuing our tradition of showing every minute of every major convention since 1984. coming up tonight, congressman chris van hollen, budget committee ranking member, talks about the impact of the ryan budget on medicare and the economy. later, artur davis campaigns for mitt romney in virginia. that is followed by the president and first lady on the last leg of a three-day bus tour in iowa. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal," the co-founder of no labels talks about his organization's new at making the presidency work campaign that aims to make whoever wins office be a more effective leader. then, an examination of for-

profit colleges and criticism by legislators. the president of the association of for-profit colleges will be our guest. later, issues facing the self- employed in our economy. "washington journal," live a starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on >> c-span, created by members of the table -- and cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your cable television provider. >> house budget committee rank no. chris van hollen talked about his personal relationship with paul ryan. he said they have "very deep and fundamental differences about whether -- where we should go." he made these remarks at a politics and eggs breakfast in

bedford, new hampshire. it is a regular stop for presidential candidates. this is an hour. >> thank you. thank you, jim, for that very warm introduction. thank you for your leadership with the new england council. thank all of you who are members of the new england council. it is great to participate in this tradition of politics and eggs. i look forward to signing a couple more of those eggs as the morning goes on. i want to thank the new hampshire institute of politics were hopping to organize this effort. i want to recognize some of my former colleagues, one person who i the privilege of working with, paul, who was here this morning. thank you for all your service and what you are continuing to do in your various capacities.

mike, thank you for your leadership and past service to the country. larry, thank you for helping to pull this together. to all of you, it is really a privilege to be up here in the granite state of new hampshire. we all know this is a pivotal moment in the presidential election, and other elections taking place, which present a very clear choice for all of us. i know from my own state of maryland and my travels around the country, including new hampshire, that the american people are fair and that they will examine the facts. they will very clearly examine this choice. i know that new hampshire, given its unique role in the presidential selection process, takes those responsibilities very seriously. i'm very privileged to be with you here this morning. i do believe that the choice in

the presidential election has come into much sharper focus since mitt romney, governor romney, selected paul ryan as his running mate. i should say at the outset, and larry indicated this, jim indicated this, the personal relationship we have is a very good one. we get along well. we have, however, very deep and fundamental differences on where we should go in this country. the good news is that i believe in the budget committee and on the floor of the house we have been able to express those differences in a civil manner, in a way that has sharpened and elevated the debate and made the choice is more clear. i very much hope that as we head into the final days of this election we will focus on those

choices that are before us, focus on a very deep policy differences. i fundamentally believe that, when you examine the ryan-romney plan, you will discover that it is simply returning to to a failed trickle-down economic strategy, a strategy we tried during the bush of ministration, which crashed against the heart wall of reality. after those eight years, we lost private-sector jobs and the deficit was skyrocketing. if you look at the ryan-romney plan, it does provide the big tax breaks to people at the very top on the theory that somehow the trickle-down effect will boost everybody. that simply did not happen. i did not -- i do not know why we want to return to that approach. let's review the facts. it is important to start at the

beginning of the last four year story. we all know that the day the president was sworn in he inherited a huge financial and economic mess. there can be no disputing that fact. let's review some of the specifics. we know, at that time, that the economy was in total freefall. over 800,000 americans were losing their jobs every month. the gdp was plummeting toward great depression levels at a - 8% g.d.p. rate. that was spiraling downward. if you compare retirement savings from the fall of 2007 to the time president bush left office, their value had collapsed by 1/3. these are retirement savings,

401k plans. that is what the president walked into. i should say that it is a very good thing that we did not take the advice of former president bush and paul ryan to privatize social security. the reality is, had we made that choice that they were strongly advocating, there would have been millions of americans who were put at total economic risk at the time of the collapse of the economy. i am glad we did not roll the dice and take that chance with seniors at that time. millions of seniors rely entirely on social security. millions more have social security as their primary source of income, and yet, when you have that collapsed in the 401k side of the retirement system, that is all many people could have fallen back on. you are rolling the dice with

that -- people would have been in great jeopardy. that is the situation that the president inherited. he acted very quickly. he acted very quickly. in the face of that economic collapse, he worked with the democratic congress to pass the economic recovery bill. he worked with the congress to rescue the auto industry and american manufacturing. he took those steps immediately. the results were good. we all know that we have a long way to go in the economy, but let's review the results as determined by the nonpartisan congressional budget office. i am on the budget committee. we have lots of back-and-forth, but there is a referee. the referee is this agency called the congressional budget office. they are professionals who

examine the facts and make the best projections they can and best analyses they can. they have determined that as a result of the recovery act and other actions that were taken we saved over 3 million jobs in this country. we are spiralling downwards, you enact the recovery bill, he began to turn the corner and move upwards. we have now had 29 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. those retirement savings that took such a big hit have now comeback and are at a higher level than they were before the big fall. there is much more retirement security there for the american people. since elections are about choices, it is important to ask the question, what was mitt romney proposing at that time? what were the republicans

suggesting? mitt romney said, he thought there was an important government role in rescuing the financial sector. when it came to the meltdown in wall street, he said, yes, i think there is a role for government there. when it came to rescuing main street and the auto industry and american manufacturing, he said now. let them go bankrupt. it is not that he does not see the government playing any role in times of emergency. he was all-in to rescue wall street. he was a wall when it came to trying to help mainstream -- awol when it came to try to help main street and american manufacturing. you remember when he was in nevada. housing prices fell to no fault of homeowners. he rejected the idea of coming up with a plan to help credit

worthy home owners whose home prices have plummeted and were under water on their mortgages. he said, let it hit bottom. that was his answer. he did not what wall street to hit bottom, but the auto industry, american manufacturing, homeowners who were under water through no fault of their own -- no government role there. what about the new vice- president candidate, paul ryan? it has been reported that, three days before the president was inaugurated, paul ryan and a group of what are called the young guns who are now big leaders in the republican house leadership, they gathered in washington and decided to come up with a plan and how they were going to work against the president. as one of them said, their plan was essentially to oppose whatever the president proposed.

this is before they even knew what the president was going to propose. that was their plan. we all know the remark that was made by the republican leader in the united states senate, mitch mcconnell, who when asked what his top party was, he said, not jobs, not the economy, but defeating the president. right from the start, the president was facing a major effort to defeat him rather than focus with him on solving the problems the country face. d. so what happens? the first bill he proposed was legislation to allow women who have been discriminated against based on pay in the work force to have an opportunity to get justice. every republican and the house leadership and voted against that.

that was the first bill. pretty straightforward. only three house republicans voted for it. paul ryan voted against it. next up was the recovery bill. not a single house republicans voted for it. again, that playbook was, what the president proposes, we will oppose. that did not stop a lot of republican members of congress, once the recovery bill was -- from asking its first \ some of that recovery stimulus money to boost jobs in their own states and districts. many who had been widely reported on the time -- at the time. just yesterday the "boston globe" had a story about how paul ryan had sent a letter to the department of energy in december 2009 asking for funds to help boost the local economy

in wisconsin. the letter said that he would help stimulate the local economy by creating new jobs. again, no votes for the recovery bill, hard illogical line against it, -- the ideological line against it, yet republican members recognize it could help in their local economies. the president has been the first to recognize that we need to do a lot more to help put americans back to work. he understands that this recovery remains very fragile and that millions of americans are hurting. he has proposed another major jobs initiative. he submitted that to the congress last a timbre. it includes a number of very important elements. one of the most important elements to be a major new investment in our nation's infrastructure. new roads, bridges, transit,

ports. if you look at the reports by the american society of civil engineers, not a right wing group or a left-wing group, they give the united states a group -- a great of d when it comes to infrastructure. if we will compete with international competitors, we need a 21st century infrastructure. an energy infrastructure, the foundations that help move goods and services around the country and the world. the president proposed that -- $50 billion. major initiative. he proposed initial -- additional measures to help small businesses. that was in september. we have not had a vote in the house of representatives on the president's jobs initiative. we have now voted 37 times in the house of representatives to repeal obamacare, the affordable care act, but not a single vote

on the rest of the president's jobs initiative. now less september the president also submitted a plan for long- term deficit reduction. we have to big parties. one is to nurture and boost the fragile recovery we remain in. it is important to pass a jobs initiative. we will take other measures to accomplish that. what other measure the president has proposed is providing confidence to the country by extending a immediately tax relief for the vast majority of american people. 98% of the country. 97% of past-through businesses. overwhelming amounts of the american people support this. we need to do that now to provide confidence, but we also need to be serious about taking a credible plan and posture with

respect to our long-term deficit. our long-term growth is going to require that we get our deficits under control. we should do it in a balanced way. if we do not get our deficits under control, over time that additional government spending will crowd out private investment. we have got to do that. the question is, how do you do that? last tender, the same time the president submitted his jobs initiative, he also submitted his plan for a long-term deficit reduction. here-submitted that as part of his budget. it would reduce the deficit over 10 years by $4 trillion. that was the target established by the bipartisan submission -- commission. he does it in a balanced way. it includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 of additional

revenue. a balanced approach, a shared responsibility approach. erskine bowles, one of the co- authors of the report, recently penned an op ed in the "washington post" that says the following. in contrast to romney, the president, like the gang of six and other light-member -- like- minded members of both parties, has embraced the principle that merit -- america will turn the corner on its debt only if republicans and democrats come together to support a balanced deficit-reduction plan. the president has embraced the central principle of simpson- bowles, that we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction. anybody who is a true old-style fiscal conservative recognizes that we have got to get our deficits under control and the

long-term. if you are serious, you recognize that we have got to deal with both sides of the budget equation, spending and revenue. that is the great family -- of the romney-ryan approach. the ryan budget, which has been embraced by governor romney, he says he would sign it if he were president, takes a totally uncompromising, hard-edge, right-wing ideological approach to our economy and our budget. it doubles down on this notion that somehow tax breaks for folks at the very top will boost the economy. it does so at the expense of everyone and everything else. let's online this a little bit. it would provide these big tax breaks. the theory is that providing

people like mitt romney another tax break will trickle down and boost the economy. as i said, at the outset, we have tried this before. it is no longer a theory. we have the evidence. the results are in. at the end of the eight years of the bush administration, after tax cuts that disproportionately benefited folks at the very top, we had a net loss of private- sector jobs. the only thing that went up was the deficit, and it went way up. so why in the world would we go back to a playbook that did not help the economy and drove up the deficit? we know from the clinton years that a balanced approach to the economy and to the budget and to deficit can lead to huge job growth. 20 million jobs were created during the clinton administration after the 1993 clinton tax plan. the president is saying with

respect to fall to the very top, we can no longer afford that. republicans have taken a position -- they will not pass it now because they will hold middle-income taxpayers hostage until they can get cuts for the folks at the very top. i thought they agreed we had this long-term fiscal challenge we had to deal with in a balanced way. that is one problem. the economic theory has been tested by reality and it failed. here is the thing that will become very clear in this campaign to the american people. it is not just that tax cuts for the wealthy do not work in terms of boosting the economy -- they come at a huge cost. -- a huge cost to the rest of the country. if you are serious about deficit reduction over the long-term, and all of us should be, if you ask nothing from the faults of the very top, if you subscribe to the north -- grover norquist

pledge, as 99% of the republican house members have, it says not one additional penny of revenue can come from the wealthiest americans to help reduce our deficit. not one penny. the american people can do the math on this. if the sick and the outset that you are not going to ask for one penny from the wealthiest americans, and you want to deal with the long-term budget deficits, everyone and everything else gets hit. let's look at a couple of examples. let's start with middle-class taxpayers. the tax policy center, which is an independent, non-partisan body, recently did an analysis of the ron the tax plan. they concluded that -- romani tax plan. they concluded that by providing these tax cuts in a deficit- neutral manner, you will end up raising the tax burden on middle income taxpayers. you will have to eliminate a lot

of deductions in the tax code that to help middle-income taxpayers. mortgage income, the current exemption for the cost of health insurance provided by employers, all of those deductions are at risk. therefore, the price to be paid for tax breaks for the folks at the very top, another round of them, if you want to do it in a deficit neutral manner, which they want to do because they say they are real fiscal conservatives, that means other people are going to have to pay more through eliminating some of those important deductions the people rely on. i can support tax reform, but i cannot support tax reform masquerading as a trojan horse for just another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top at the expense of everybody else. i should say that, early in this

campaign, governor romney pointed to the tax policy center as an authoritative, independent source when they did analysis that work in his favor. because they are at or to -- an authoritative source. it should be said that under the ryan tax plan, mitt romney's tax rate would drop to below 1%. i can understand why governor romney likes the plan. but an independent analysis was done the other day that showed, if you apply that version of the rhine plan to mitt romney's 2010 taxes, it would drop from 15%, which is already pretty low effective rate with some of that income, down to 1%. who picks up the tab for that? everybody else. so it will hit middle-income taxpayers harder. we had an amendment that democrats offered when this plan was put forward by paul ryan.

it said, ok, let's test this. we had an amendment that said, when you do tax reform, do not increase the tax burden on taxpayers earning under to the energy to thousand dollars. they voted against it. they know that is the fundamental indication of that plan. who else is that it? it's our economy and our growth. it hits the opportunity for more americans. again, if you are serious about debt reduction -- deficit reduction, and u.s. nothing from people at the very top, you will cut deeply into education funding, deeply into research, science, innovative technologies, and will cut deeply into infrastructure. the rise in budget cuts deeply into infrastructure spending. under the budget plan, it would dramatically reduce it next year. reduce it, not provide a bigger investor as -- a bigger

investment as the president called for, but cut it. that is a time when we have needs and also 14% unemployment in construction workers. it will compete with china and india and everybody else in the world, we need a first-class, 21st century infrastructure. had we do that? training and community colleges , -- is a bad investment to do that. to cut that, which allows everybody to reach their full potential. i want to focus on this very important issue -- it hits seniors very hard. seniors on medicare and people who rely on medicaid. there is no doubt that now and over the longer term we need to deal with the issues of rising health-care costs. rising health-care costs are not

unique to medicare. we have rising health-care costs throughout our system. we spend 18% of our gross national product on health care, far more than any other industrialized country. there is no doubt that we need to deal with those rising costs. but there is a fundamental difference between the way the president is proposed to do it and democrats are proposed to do it, and the way that governor romney and paul ryan have proposed to do it. approach,president's as we began with the affordable care act, what we say is that we need to move the health care system, especially in medicare, away from a deeper service system that rewards the volume and quantity of care over the value of care and quality of care. we need to move the incentive structure away from that to the health-caren

system. let me give you an example. hospitals -- when you are a patient who goes to the hospital, the hospital gets paid by medicare. it should. they get paid. the patient gets released in the hospital -- they develop complications from the same condition that the patient originally went to the hospital for. they are readmitted. the hospital is paid again by medicare. the hospital has no financial incentive under the current system to coordinate care for the patient once the patient has left the hospital. that does not make sense. as part of the affordable care act, we changed that. we're moving for payments to accounts will care organizations to make sure there are incentives to coordinate care for that patient so you avoid the extra cost for repeated hospital admissions. let me give you another example. a lot of people do not realize that medicare already has a

private plan component, medicare part b, private health insurance. it turns out that medicare was compensating private insurance plans on average of 114% of the fee for service plans. in other words, these private plans that work established to reduce the costs of medicare actually increase costs. one of the things we did is that we began to eliminate those overpayments, the excessive subsidies. they were paid not only by taxpayers to buy every medicare recipient who is in a fee-for- service plan. they pay higher premiums for those plans. we said, that does not make any sense at all. we reduced those. we used some of the savings to strengthen some benefits in medicare. the prescription drug donald hall was closed so that fears

of high prescription drug costs are not left high and dry. we eliminated the copays for preventive health care so more seniors will get preventive care before they get more chronic conditions that are more costly. those of the kinds of things that we did to save money on medicare. that is how we use some of the money to strengthen benefits. i should point out -- i have two, but i just want to point this out. this is an important issue that we should be talking about. this is what the medicare strtrusties report says. this is non-partisan. "the financial outlook for the medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the changes in the affordable care act."

substantially improved. because of some of the savings we talked about, the dollars can go farther. we use some of those dollars for the purpose of improving the benefit side talked about. what is the romney-ryan approach? it is not to reduce overall health-care costs. it is to simply transfer those rising health-care costs from seniors on medicare to seniors. that is what the congressional budget office said that under the earlier version of the ryan plan, 10 years from now, seniors on medicare would pay $6,000 more for the same set of benefits. the new plan, it will cost seniors more for the same reason -- they are simply transferring costs off of the medicare program, not reducing costs are saving costs. they are transferring them to

seniors on medicare. at the same time, your budget says they will provide big tax breaks for the very top. the other point i want to make is that in the health-care plan for members of congress provides protection for members of congress against rising health- care costs. it is a fixed percentage, premier support as opposed to a voucher plan. as health-care costs rise, members of congress can be assured that 72% of those costs will be covered by health care -- the health care plan. they are proposing a much worse deal for seniors on medicare than they have for themselves. a much worse deal. under their plan, the way they save money is to de-link the amount that seniors receive from

the medicare program from the costs of medicare. the result is that -- i guarantee this will be my last chart -- see the screen mind here, that represents the steady premiums support that members of congress get under their plan, 72% coverage. that red line is what happens to medicare recipients under their voucher plan. the amount that senior citizens get for medicare drops dramatically. that means that i did their costs go way up or they get less coverage and less benefits. again, at the same time, folks at the very top are getting a better deal. i will make one last point on this medicare issue. you hear a lot about the fact that republican -- the republican plan does not touch seniors over 55 years old. that is not true. here is why.

i mentioned that we use some of the savings by getting rid of the overpayments to private insurance companies and medicare to close the prescription drug doughnut hole if you are a senior with high prescription costs, you will be paying thousands of dollars more over the next 10 years. thousands of dollars more than you would today. if you use a lot of preventive health care services, and we hope that you will, it will costs you more under the republican plan immediately and not 10 years from now. it will cost you more immediately. seniors will get a much worse deal 10 years later. this is important. romney is out there running in his ads, saying that the president and the democrats, you

know, they cut medicare. hopefully i made clear that no benefits were cut. some companies were being overpaid. it was a waste of taxpayer dollars. we used some of the savings to strengthen medicare. in the paul ryan budget, they took all of those savings. they wanted to pocket the savings we have achieved, but they did not spend one penny to strengthen medicare benefits. they did not close the doughnut hole. they would only reopen it. they took the money. that is why you saw paul ryan on tv last night and getting twisted on the not. the hypocrisy of their message

is being exposed. in the ryan a budget, they take all of this savings and put into the ads they're running. only, they deny use and the savings to strengthen -- only they did not use the savings to strengthen medicare. change the incentive structure. the obama administration has rooted out waste. we do that. that where you can reduce costs without hurting. there has been a lot of talk about how this is a brave and courageous budget. i disagree. i do not think it is brief or courageous at all to provide another round of tax breaks to

wealthy people at the expense of seniors on medicare and on education and at the expense of middle class taxpayers. it is not courageous at all, to change the tax system to encourage offshore in more american jobs rather than creating more tax incentives to keep jobs right here at home. i do not think it is courageous to whack the medicare program that seniors rely on. they really whacked that. that does not break for courageous. take the balanced approach as the president takes. that is what we need to do, not the uncompromising "our way or

the highway" approach. we know what happens at the end of that road. this will be a huge election for the company. i appreciate your time and attention. i hope that this election will be about the direction of the country and fundamental tauruses. i am confident that if people go out the door and -- the direction of the country and fundamental choices. i am confident that if people go door to door, we will be able to reelect president obama. thank you. [applause] i am happy to take questions. >> we're running a little late, but we can take a few questions. please identify yourself.

>> hello. i am a volunteer spokesperson. i am glad you mentioned medicare towards the end. everyone i have talked to -- i have talked to seniors and the are concerned about what will be there for their children and grandchildren. what they tell me -- the audiences that i have -- there is concern on both sides. they are concerned about what they hear about the reduction in bed care. the other day, that reduction was bumped up -- about the reduction in medicare. the other day, that reduction was bumped up. >> there was no reduction in benefits. >> i want an answer like that to make me look smart for my audience. [laughter]

>> this is the great hoax that is being perpetrated by the campaigromney campaign. we have achieved medicare savings by doing things like eliminating the excessive subsidies to some of the private insurance companies that operate. we used some of those savings to strengthen medicare benefits, including prescription -- closing prescription donut holes. in the ryan a budget, they do not only take the savings, but those savings would strengthen the program. they did not want to recycle anything back. now they are timed themselves into a pretzel. they are running a totally

misleading and hypocritical ad, saying that the affordable health care act cut benefits when it did not cut any benefits. increased benefits, which cut.blicans have kep why should be subsidizing private insurance companies? >> thank you for the clarification. part c is medicare advantage. this is another thing about medicare. it is a complicated program. we have part a, b, c. these are complicated issues and

the romney campaign is taking advantage of that. they want to confuse people. that is shameful. >> a few weeks ago, the former chair of the irs testified before a congressional committee regarding the impact of the affordable health care act on the irs. essentially, and i do not claim to understand all the details, he postulated that the play's the irs in an unusual position. they're not really suited for this. i think we all agreed that it is a 2008 bill that is complex. are there ways that you can envision that the act might be made simpler and less complex? what is the likelihood of that occurring after the november election?

>> well, the president has said that he is open to any constructive suggestions to improve implementation of the affordable health care act. he strongly opposes any effort to take away affordable health care coverage for millions of americans. the reason the irs is part of this program is because in order to make sure that people can afford health care, it provides tax credit based on your income. when you go into these exchanges, the sort of shopping markets for health care insurance, it is very much like what federal employees and members of congress have. when you go into the exchange, you qualify depending on your income for a tax credit. that would be administered by the irs.

again, there'll be an interesting debates pitching governor romney and the president of the united states. -- an interesting debate between governor romney and the president of the united states. the fundamental idea was originally a republican idea. it was a republican counterpart , and the idea was that everyone would come into contact with the health care system at some point. everyone to take some responsibility for the costs. otherwise, everyone else cost premiums and taxes go up. let's have everyone takes some responsibility. for those who are needy,

provides a tax credit to make it more affordable. he may get a portable with this exchange. -- we make this affordable with this exchange. we want to provide tax credits to make it more affordable. secondly, in the same way that the romney plan in massachusetts, for people who could now afford health care but decide that they will freeload off of the system, there has to be some mechanism for some penalty. it is a very mild penalty. some people say it should have been a stronger. you can go to their website and take a look. >> one last question. in the back. >> tom with the health

leadership council. after the dust settles in this election and there will be a lot of dust, i assume, will there be an effort in congress to reform health in the long term? do they anticipate that in the next decade or so? >> the doc fix, it is when the doctors are reimbursed. if congress does not act, doctors would be dealing with a cup. -- cut. yes, i hope we will address that. second, we should build on the ideas of the affordable health care act.

right now as we speak, a lot of states are experimenting with improving the delivery of care to people in both medicare and medicaid programs. there are about 10% populations in the programs. if represents about 30% of the costs of the programs. there are misaligned incentives between medicare and medicaid for provided. the-for providers. -- for providers. romney would take the paul ryan approach. they could dramatically cut medicaid that seniors with disabilities and others rely on. they would eliminate those incentives. there is much that can be done there.

some is under way now. we can build upon those ideas. but again, there is a fundamental difference. it is reaching a proposal that president obama has in the building up on affordable health care act and reducing costs without reducing benefits to seniors, to the plan that romney has, which would put those costs on the backs of seniors. the meeting income of a senior on medicare is $23,000. median income of a senior on medicare is $23,000.

>> ok. thank you. [applause] i think you can see why he was chosen by his colleague to be the chair of the democratic campaign committee. he articulates the positions of his party very well and very clear. these are complex issues. these are not issues you can explain in 30 seconds. he has done a great deal of research and analysis. obviously, it shows in his presentation today. we hope that these issues continue to be discussed with the presidential candidates as well as a federal candidates and congressional candidates throughout the country. these are very important issues.

i feel pretty good that we have people like chris van hollen studying these issues and trying to be as objective as he can and try to find a resolution. he is a man to watzch. -- wtach. -- watch. we look forward to having him again. >> thank you for having me. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> thank you. take care. >> thank you. >> you did a really nice job of explaining everything. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> i'm having a terrific time. >> thank you. >> how are things? >> not too bad.

>> thank you. that was wonderful. >> thank you. >> there have been a lot of changes in the district of maryland. >> thank you.

>> there is a back and forth. >> are right.

>> thank you. you were fabulous. >> hi, chris. >> thanks for coming.

>> i was apprise you did not mention and the likelihood of the cuts taking a effect -- surprised you did not mention the likelihood of the effect.king a effec >> well, right now -- we will have to see after the

election. hopefully the election will send a message to republicans to take a balanced approach. >> thank you for coming. you did a good job. >> thank you. >> great to have you here. >> i want that thank you on behalf of sean. thank you. >> quick.

he has to go. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my daughter is a friend of one of your staffers. >> oh, really? oh, she is terrific. >> thanks a lot. >> thanks for the talk. it was informative.

>> people have a tendency to simplify talks. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> nice to meet you. >> thank you. >> nice to meet you. >> angela merkel is in canada for meetings with the prime minister steven harper. we will bring you a dry news conference from -- a news conference from ottawa. >> a woman talks about the

relationship between a u.s. nuns and the catholic church. you can watch it live starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> which is more important? well, our honor. it is a kind of nation we are. we deal with economic questions, but we are not limited through them. i know this first hand, and so you do. >> look at what has happened. we have the lowest rate in home

mortgages in 28 years. look at what has happened. 10 million new jobs. 10 million workers getting the wages they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984. we are on the countdown to this year's conventions. it cannot coverage of the democratic and republican national conventions -- you cane democratic and republican national conventions on c-span. >> the former co-chair of the bombing campaign, obama campaign, arturf the davis, and pete synder,

defended the paul ryan budget proposal. president obama's health care law -- this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome to the number one battleground state in the country, virginia -- not north carolina. [applause] yes today i spent the day in southwest virginia. -- yesterday i spent the day in southwest virginia. never in a million years did i think that i would have to address the kind of disappointing language and vile

that came out of him yesterday. it is 2012. who talks like that? let alone the sitting vice president of the united states speaks like that? i find it ironic that four years ago, candidate obama spoke about how he did not want to make a big election about small things. he promised millions of americans and hundreds of thousands of people in virginia hope and change. he promised to change the tone that we conducted our government in the u.s. a lot of people believed in that. a lot of people took a chance. the years later, we have the most divisive, hateful,

partisan focused rhetoric coming from the other side then i have ever seen. in the past three weeks, president obama and vice president joe biden and their allies have accused political opponents of being part of a murder and trying to put large swaths of america "in chains." it is disappointing and despicable. unfortunately, the beat goes on. the obama campaign is focused like a laser beam on trying to tear down and personally attack congressman paul ryan and the

ryan budget and the policies of the romney-ryan ticket. there is only one candidate in the race who would gut medicaid by over $700 million. that is president obama and vice president biden. to give a little bit more perspective on exactly what the president has been up to and to medicaid, ith on landed over to someone who knows president obama very well. he is someone who served as the 008.hair for obama in 2 he also served alongside with

paul ryan with great pleasure. i introduced to artur davis. [applause] >> thank you. i am unaccustomed to clapping at a press conference. i think i am lost. [laughter] we are thankful for everyone here. pete, i want to expand on medicare. any time you become a candidate for office, any time you organize a campaign, ladies and gentlemen, you have a fundamental choice to make at the onset on how you will

discuss the issues and how you discuss your opponent. you can aim high at aspirations, or you can aim low at our fears. you can choose to read either a hope or cynicism. -- breed hope or cynicism. all i am saying is something senator barack obama said in boston to thousand four. all i'm doing is more or less repeating -- what barack obama said in boston in 2004. all i'm doing is more or less repeating what he said. i will give you some examples of

what i mean in the conxt and medicaid. when the obama campaign claims that seniors will have the medicare ripped away from them, how many times have heard that from the obama crowd to the seniors in the room that they will take medicare away from you? "they" being the republicans? when the bombing campaign pedals that message, they know full where -- the obama campaign pedals that message, they know full y that the paul ryan but it does not take anything away from seniors. when the obama campaign savages

the congressmen who i have served with for great years and they say they will weaken with reductions, 70% of how obamacare is paid for is cuts in medicare that affect those of you in this room who are seniors today. not in the future, but right now. obama campaign says theg bombing-ryan ticket will debilitate medicare and they not saying obamthey are

the -- if we do not act now, the obama campaign is a breeding cynicism and not hope. the cynicism as far as paul ryan goes -- you might think it started with the moment he walked to the stage and joined the ticket. it did not start then. it started in the spring of 2011 when president obama went to one of our leading universities in washington, d.c. and appealed to paul ryan by inviting him to come and even sent him to the front row. for those of you who have been to a baptist church, the front row is a big deal. [laughter] after putting up the man on the front row and explicitly saying to him, come and join me so we

can talk about this bill, the president turned and gestures toward him and lectures him that he, congressman ryan, was not being a good american and that his plan fell short of america in the avalues. cynicism did not start with medicare. you saw it in the shameless and that sought to make political profit of a women at's death. it was an ad so shameless that a democratic former senator, who is nearly is selected as barack obama's running mate four years ago, has announced that democrats ought to distance themselves from it. the cynicism this week will not stop.

you have all seen the tape. the vice president of our country, standing in front of a crowd that was at least 50% african american and looking at them and saying, they will put y'all back in chains. i have spoken to a few african americans in my day. every african american in that audience knew who the "y'all" was. they knew what buttons he was trying to push by talking about chains. politicians are funny when they get caught. when people heard vice president by dan's, called him

comments anden's called him on it, the obama campaign backpedaled. they are added insult to our intelligence. it is to the credit of the african americans in that room that if you watched the tape, you do not hear a lot of applause when biden made his comments. you would hear boos. to the credit of the people there, they announced their stood him -- they understood him

well. as i bring our last guest forward, i will end but this -- chicago does not plan to and the cynicism. the white house does not plan to end the cynicism. they think it will work. if you ran four years ago and told conservative voters in virginia and north carolina and you will cut the deficit in half and you have submitted budgets, if you promised that unemployment would be at 7.5% if you passed their stimulus package, if you promise to bring the country together and it is more divided than ever --

how many of us believe four years ago that barack obama was not just a politician? how many americans invested their hope that he was more than that his presidency would mean more? we may not have the power to stop it. they will run their campaign the way that they want. the american people have the power to punish it. they can punish it by saying, "not this time." thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is jane gandee.

i am a small business person in northern virginia. i am not your today as a small- business person. i am here to talk about medicare. a few weeks ago, i brought my sister and up here so i could help with her care. i am paying attention to medicare. she is 65. she was a brilliant high school teacher. the rest of her years will depend on medicare because of her heart disease and also no early dimentia. she needs medicine and good care. there are certain things that she does a fine. now that i've been paying attention to obamacare and the affordable health care act and some of the things i am reading

about where the money is coming from to fund the affordable health care act, it worries me. she needs this care. i understand from the right and a proposal that she at 65 and me will not to be effective by this proposal. -- from the ryan proposal that my sister at 65 and me will not be affected by this. pay attention. it is important. i hope everyone will pay attention to the differences between the affordable health care act and the cuts it will costs to medicare. thank you for your time. i think now we will take questions. [applause]

>> question. >> how can doctors keep working to treat people on medicare when medicare does not pay their bills? >> you ask a very important question. i say that not to flatter you, but you put your finger on something that most people mess about the affordable health care act two years ago. -- missed two years ago in the affordable health care act. it is paid for by cutting medicare. they paid for an act that most

of the american people did not want and that most seniors did not want by taking money out of today costs medicare high. every doctor who services the medicare population knows it. doctors, a good doctors all over northern virginia, all over the state and all over the country are no longer participating in the medicare program because -- how do they cut medicare? the administration said that they are making changes. they are instituting some savings and costs provisions. that sounds a well and good, right? this saving and costs provision is that they took money out of the medicare cost that goes to doctors. i remember my own party, the democratic party would say with a straight face, we are not cutting medicare. we are cutting money going to

reach doctors. what do they think happens when you cut money to doctors? they stop providing services. in addition to doctors -- every doctor is a small business person of. this commission that was appointed that the democrats did not want to talk about because it did not poll well, no one can tell you who is on it. they do not have public meetings and they love to brag about transparency. that will put this commission on c-span. the commission gets to sit down and decide procedure by procedure were cut ought to happen. you have no say. doctors have no say.

it is bad business for the country. it is an incredibly difficult business for doctors. you put your finger on something that many people missed. >> what are the chances of romney and ryan's chances of turning things around if they make it into office? >> we're not in washington, d.c., so the air is better here. [laughter] you hear over and over again presidents cannot get anything done. it is tough being president. when you are president, people start being mean to me you and they start to block you.

the way this system works is leaders do matter if leaders can summon the country to follow them and if they are able to work with the other side. isn't this the first president we have seen, ladies and gentlemen, in our lifetimes who has not one time on one issue figure out how to work with the other side. not one time did he figure out how to bring any republicans into his tent. kennedy, johnson, a clinton, carter, bush, bush, and reagan all figured it out. it could not be that hard if all of them take it out. i think they can fix it. i will say one thing about

congressman ryan. i served with him on two committees. congressman ryan and the time he has spent in public life has accomplished more in terms of productivity than anyone else in his political generation. no offense intended to our president, president obama was in public life for roughly 12 years before he became president. paul ryan, pa applied for 14 years before he even makes the national ticket. -- paul ryan served public life for 14 years before heat made the national ticket. president obama does not have any special status. he has never been a chair. paul ryan shows that he has the ability and the commitment to get things done and not just

talking. he can make things happen. if you confront massachusetts and you are a republican, -- can run massachusetts and you are a republican, you can run anything. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" dan schnur talks about the campaign. >> later, a discussion on issues facing the self-employed in today's economy. will your from the president of the national association for the self-employed. "washington journal" beginning

live in the morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> angela merkel is in canada for meetings with the prime minister. we'll bring you a joint conference from ottawa. coverage will be right here on c-span. >> i was in a training program when i got out of the army corps ""the wall street journal"." >> he talks about his various jobs as a journalist and his criticism of the defense budget priorities. >> said built a facility -- they bill to an expensive facility -- built $4 million dollars on a

facility in for 40 people. if he spent that much for an elementary, that would raise questions. >> public and of the first lady stopped in dubuque -- president obama and the first lady stopped in dubuque, iowa. later in the day, the president and first lady had another rally in davenport. this is 45 minutes. ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] >> thank you, guys. oh, my goodness. [applause] oh, my goodness. this is so sweet. we love you guys, too.

let me start by -- four more. [applause] i want to start by thanking jennifer for -- we are so proud of her, and we are so grateful for her sacrifice and service, and for andrew service and sacrifice as well. i just want to thank her for the wonderful introduction and for all she is doing for her country. yeah, it sounds like you all are pretty fired up. and very ready to go. and i am really glad to hear that. first of all, it is good to see my husband. i have not seen him in a good week. >> 5 days.

>> seemed like a week. it was so long. >> i missed you. >> but i am just as happy to be back in the great state of iowa where it all began. [applause] you guys are getting me all fired up just being here. it is so beautiful here. good to be back. our family has so many wonderful memories of our time here in iowa. in pella i remember an entire neighborhood sang happy birthday to melia. on the day of the big and jefferson/jackson dinner, i remember how we danced down the streets.

a few thousand folks across the state as well were there as well. that was fun. our girls still talk about our visit to this day there. -- the state fair. we had a ball. we rode the bomb for cars, slid down the big slide. barack almost lost sasha. it was not pretty. was not happy about that. yes, we experience the magic of our first fried twinkie, even though you say i do not let you eat them. you eat what you want. [laughter] we were surrounded by the press. so barack left and the girls looked at me and said, that i am so glad he is gone,

now we can have fun. after he left, we stayed until the fair shut down. it was a ball. i have to say, we are all very jealous that he got to go back to the fair without us last week. did you have a fried twinkie? >> pork chop and beer. [applause] >> he is so pleased with himself. >> tasty. >> in all seriousness though, because of those wonderful memories and some anymore, i want to start by saying thank you, truly. thank you for the kindness, generosity, and love you have shown our family. throughout the state, consistently. [applause] iowa was a very first experience with our national campaign, truly. it is because of all of you

that our daughters still think campaigning is fun. [laughter] they do. they never really want to go, but there were like that was fun. more importantly, because of you, we will always remember what this process can be at its very best. every election that you all remind us what democracy is all about. it is about people getting to know the issues and discussing them with their neighbors. it is about meeting your candidates and getting to know them and their families up close and personal. i will never forget the very first visit that i made here back in 2007. i'd think it was the very first campaign event that i did, so i was nervous. it was in the backyard of someone's home. i have to admit, i really did

not know what it would be like. i have not done much campaigning. back then the people barely even knew who barack was, let alone who i was. the folks in the backyard welcomed me like an old friend. within minutes i was so grumbled that i remember kicking off my heels, and i was standing barefoot in the grass talking and laughing and listening to people's stories. i heard about what was going on in people's lives. the jobs they were struggling and businesses there were trying to keep afloat. the kids they hoped to send to college if they could find a way to afford it. and the more we talked, the more i learned that and all of the stories i saw my story. i saw barack's story. my father worked at the city water plant all his life, in either one of my parents had a college degree, but they saved and sacrifice some my brother and i could have the kind of

education they only dreamed of. whitney young -- that is my high school. go dolphins.

it can build a decent life for yourself and even better life for your kid. rejiggered kids. that is why we are here. whether it is supporting our veterans are saving our of industry, that is what this man, my husband, has been fighting for every single day. and the one thing i share with three and a half years, as first lady, i have had the chance to see up close and personal what being president really looks

[laughter] but seriously, i have seen how the issues that come across the president's desk are always the hard ones -- the problems with no clear solutions, the judgment calls where the stakes are so high and there's absolutely no margin for error. and as president, i've seen how you're going to get all kinds of advice and opinions from all kinds of people. but the truth is that at the end of the day, as president, all you have to guide you are your values and your vision and your life experiences. in the end, it all boils down to who you are and what you stand for. [applause] and we all know who my husband is, don't we? [applause] and we all know what he stands for. [applause] he is the son of a single mother who struggled to put herself through school and pay the bills. he's the grandson of a woman who woke up before dawn every day to catch a bus to her job at the bank. and even though barack's grandmother worked hard to help support his family and she was

good at her job, like so many women, she hit that glass ceiling and watched men no more qualified than she was -- men she'd actually trained -- climb up that ladder ahead of her. so what i remind people is that your president knows what it means when a family struggles. this is not a hypothetical situation for him. he knows what it means to want something better for your kids and your grandkids. [applause] and that's why i love him, that's why i married. and that's what i think about every night when i put malia and sasha to bed. sometimes they put me to bed. [laughter] i can't stay up later than them anymore. but i think about the world that i want to leave for them, for all of our sons and daughters. i think about how i want to give our kids that foundation for their dreams, opportunities

worthy of their promise -- because all of our children in this country are worthy. [applause] we all want to work to give them that sense of limitless possibility, that belief that here in america, the greatest country on earth, there's always something better out there if you're willing to work for it. [applause] so we know that we can't turn back now. we have come so far, but we have so much more work to do. and if we keep moving forward, then we need to work our hearts out for the man that i have the pleasure of introducing -- my husband and our president, president barack obama. [applause] >> hello, dubuque!

[applause] thank you, dubuque. how is everybody doing today? [applause] now, first of all, i, too, just want to thank jennifer for not just her introduction, but for serving as a military spouse and championing the causes that are so important for so many military families like hers. and so please give her a big -- another round of applause. thank you for everything that you do. very proud of you. [applause] i also want to acknowledge, sitting next to jennifer is congressman bruce braley -- (applause) -- who helped to get the bill that jennifer had

worked on, based on her experience with andrew, passed, and i had the honor of signing into law -- congressman bruce braley, who is doing a great job on behalf of our veterans and on behalf of working people here in iowa. [applause] a couple of other friends who are here -- your own attorney general -- this guy supported me when nobody could pronounce my name. [laughter] folks would say, tom, why are you doing that? but he is a man of great integrity, a champion on behalf of consumers nationwide as well as here in iowa -- tom miller is here. give him a big round of applause. [applause] also, your own mayor -- mayor roy buol is here. give roy a big round of applause. [applause] and finally, my wife.

[applause] now, it is true, i have not seen her in five days and -- except i caught the end of leno. [laughter] and the only reason that she, i think, is happy to see me is because she knows that after today, she gets to go tomorrow and get our girls from sleep- away camp, and she has been missing them terribly. so we stand in the way of her getting to her babies. [laughter] >> we still love you. [laughter] >> but i have to tell you, when i stand here and listen to her, i am just reminded how lucky i am, because she is a woman of strength and integrity and

honor. she keeps me straight every single day. she is the best mom in the world. [applause] and she's cute. [laughter] and the problem is, sometimes when i listen to her talk i start choking up a little bit, and i forget what i'm going to say. [laughter] but i could not be prouder of her. and i say often -- back in 2008, i said, look, i'm not a perfect man; i won't be a perfect president. i do think she is a perfect first lady. i just want you to know that. [applause] now, this is our third day in iowa. [applause] and she's right, we have been traveling all across the state.

we did stop at the state fair. we stopped to get something to eat before she showed up, just so there wasn't any issues -- >> smart man. >> smart man. [laughter] we began the journey in council bluffs, and just like four years ago, we've traveled all across this state, west to east, meeting with you and talking about your lives. we've driven through boone and des moines and oskaloosa and marshalltown and waterloo and cedar rapids. we met farmers who've been badly hurt by drought and who now need us to pass a farm bill. [applause] we met folks who've helped iowa become a leader in wind energy. [applause] and now they need us to keep investing in clean, renewable energy. [applause] this morning i had breakfast

with some of our outstanding veterans who fought under our proud flag. [applause] and so now we need to serve them just as well as they've served us, and make sure that they've got new jobs and new opportunities and a roof over their heads when they come home. [applause] and every stop, i've got fond memories of the last campaign -- the campaign we had four years ago. every stop, i've gotten reminders of what makes iowa so special and how this is where our movement for change happened. [applause] it was because of you. it was because of your stories and your strength and your spirit that i had the strength and the spirit to go through that campaign. and it's because of you that i've had the strength to do the job over the last three and a half years.

>> thank you! [applause] >> and i've got to tell you, iowa, we're not done yet. this journey is not done yet. we've got some unfinished business to do. [applause] and i've come here to ask you to stand with me, just like you stood with me in 2008, to finish what we started. [applause] because less than three months from now, you will face a choice, and that choice could not be bigger. this is a choice not just between two candidates. it's not just between two political parties. more than any election in recent memory, this is a choice about two fundamentally different visions for our country, how we move this country forward. and the direction that you choose when you walk into that voting booth will have an impact not just on your lives, but on the lives of your children and the lives of your grandchildren.

it will impact us for decades to come. when we came together in 2008 -- and it wasn't just democrats, we had independents and some republicans, too -- it was to restore the basic bargain that built this country, the basic bargain that made us the most prosperous economy in the world. it's a bargain that says if we work hard, we should be rewarded. it's a deal that says if you put in enough effort, you can find a job that pays the bills. you can afford a home that you call your own. you won't go broke when you get sick. you can retire with dignity and respect. [applause] and, most of all, it's a bargain that says your kids will get a great education and they'll grow up safe and healthy.

and they will have opportunities that you couldn't even dream of; that they will be able to achieve things that you could have only hoped for. that's the basic promise of america. that's the american dream. and we knew that restoring it wouldn't be easy, that it would take more than one year, or one term, or even one president -- because we had just gone through a decade in which the middle class had been taking a lot of hits. [applause] jobs had been getting shipped overseas. incomes and wages were flat or even going down, while the cost of everything from health care to college were going up. a few folks at the top were doing really well, but the average family was struggling. and this was before we saw the worst financial crisis since the great depression. and so many more of our friends

and neighbors and family members lost their jobs and lost their homes, lost their savings and pushed that american dream even further out of reach. so when i ran for this office four years ago, i told you there were no quick fixes, there were no easy solutions. that's still true today. but what i also told you and what is also still true today is that we have the capacity to meet every challenge. we've got everything we need to meet our challenges. [applause] we've still got the best workers in the world. [applause] we've still got the best entrepreneurs, and small businessmen and women in the world. [applause] we've got the best scientists and researchers in the world. we've got the best farmers in the world. we've got the best colleges and universities in the world. [applause] we are still a young nation and

we've got the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity -- people want to come here from every corner of the globe. so no matter what the naysayers say, no matter how dark the other side tries to paint things, there is not another country on earth that wouldn't gladly change places with the united states of america. [applause] because people understand that even though we go through some tough times, there is a resilience and grit about this country. and this country is the place where if you're willing to work hard -- no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is -- you can make it. [applause] that's the idea that we were trying to rebuild in 2008. that's the idea that we continue to pursue in 2012. that is what this campaign is all about. and that is why i'm running for a second term as president of

the united states. [applause] >> four more years! four more years! four more years! >> now, dubuque, here's the thing -- i told you all the things we've got going for us. we do have one problem -- politics in washington. >> yes! >> you've got the other side, which has decided that "compromise" is a dirty word, and thinks the only way to move forward is to go backwards to the same top-down economics that got us into this mess in the first place. >> booo -- >> you know, governor romney chose his running mate this week -- congressman ryan. >> booo -- >> no, no, no, congressman ryan -- i know him.

he's a good man, beautiful family. he is the ideological leader of the republicans in congress. he is a articulate spokesman for governor romney's vision. i just happen to fundamentally disagree with his vision. [applause] their vision is wrong for working families and it is wrong for the country. look, my opponent and his friends in congress, they believe that if you just get rid of more regulations on big corporations and big banks, and then you give more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans, that that will automatically lead to jobs and prosperity for ordinary families. and i'm not exaggerating here, that's their basic economic plan. the centerpiece of governor romney's economic plan is a new $5 trillion tax cut -- a lot of it going to the wealthiest

americans. >> booo -- >> now, keep in mind, $5 trillion is a lot of money, even in washington. our entire defense budget is a little over half a trillion dollars a year, so this tax cut would be like giving the equivalent of the entire defense budget in tax cuts -- a lot of it going to very rich people -- every year for 10 years. now, these folks say they want to reduce the deficit and the debt. so the question is, well, how do you give away $5 trillion and then reduce the deficit? well, recently we found out. governor romney expects you to pay for it -- >> booo -- >> -- expects middle-class families to pick up the tab. governor romney's tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class families by an average of $2,000 for families with children. >> i don't have $2,000 -- >> you don't have $2,000 to spare. i didn't think so. and, by the way, don't take my word for it.

this is based on independent studies that have been done by folks who analyze this stuff for a living. they say, look, this will cost middle-class families with children an average of $2,000. and they're asking you to pay an extra 2,000 bucks not to reduce the deficit, not to help our kids get educated, not to help kids go to college, not to rebuild our roads or our bridges or our ports -- they're doing this to give another $250,000 tax cut to folks who are making $3 million a year or more. >> booo -- >> now, have you heard this before? ñi>> yes! >> they have been trying to sell this trickle-down snake oil before. [laughter] and guess what, it didn't work then. it won't work now. it's not a plan to create jobs. it's not a plan to reduce the deficit. it's not a plan to move the economy forward. and, secretly, i think they know this. i think they know their plan is

not very popular. you can tell that because they're being pretty dishonest about my plan -- especially, by the way, when it comes to medicare. now, this is something i've got to point out here, because they are just throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks. [laughter] here's what you need to know: i have strengthened medicare. i have made reforms that have saved millions of seniors with medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs. [applause] i have proposed reforms that will save medicare money by getting rid of wasteful spending in the health care system -- reforms that will not touch your medicare benefits -- not by a dime. now, mr. romney and his running mate have a very different plan.

they want to turn medicare into a voucher program. >> booo -- >> that means seniors would no longer have the guarantee of medicare -- they'd get a voucher to buy private insurance. and because the voucher wouldn't keep up with costs, the plan authored by governor romney's running mate, congressman ryan, would force seniors to pay an extra $6,400 a year. and i assume they don't have it. >> booo -- >> my plan has already extended medicare by nearly a decade. [applause] their plan ends medicare as we know it. my plan reduces the cost of medicare by cracking down on fraud and waste and subsidies to insurance companies. their plan makes seniors pay more so they can give another tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. that's the difference between our plans on medicare. that's an example of the choice in this election. and that is why i'm running for a second term as president of the united states of america. just like we've got a different

plan on medicare, we've got a different economic plan. you just heard, they want to give $5 trillion tax cuts -- tax breaks to wealthy americans who don't need them. four years ago, i promised to cut middle-class taxes -- and, dubuque, that's exactly what i've done. [applause] so if you talk to a friend of yours who says, oh, those democrats, they're all tax-and- spend liberals, you tell them the average middle-class family, their taxes are about $3,600 lower since i've become president. [applause] and right now, what i want to do is to keep taxes right where they are for the first $250,000 of everybody's income. if your family makes under $250,000 -- like 98 percent of american families do and 97 percent of small businesses do -- you won't see your income taxes increase by a single dime next year.

[applause] now, if you're fortunate enough to be in the other 2 percent -- >> i wish! [laughter] >> if you're fortunate enough to be in the other 2 percent, you still get a tax cut on your first $250,000. but all we're asking is for the next little bit that you make you can afford to contribute a little bit more, above $250,000, so that we can pay down our deficit in a responsible, balanced way, and invest in things like education that help america grow. [applause] now, that alone won't cut our deficit. we're going to have to still make sure government does its part. we've already cut a trillion dollars' worth of spending that

we don't need, and we can do more to make government more efficient. we have to do more. but we're not going to reduce the deficit just on the backs of the middle class. so i think it makes sense to ask folks like me who've been incredibly blessed to go back to the rates that we paid under bill clinton -- a time, by the way, when nearly 23 million new jobs were created, we went from deficit to surplus -- and here's the kicker -- we created a lot of millionaires, too. [laughter] and the reason is, is because the economy, when you look back on american history, always works best when the middle class is doing well. [applause] let me ask you something. when a teacher or a construction worker or a receptionist or a firefighter --

when you get a little extra money in your pocket, what do you do? >> spend it! >> you spend it. because times are tight and maybe you've been driving around in that old beater, you had that car for 10 years and you decide it's about time to trade it in. or maybe you think now is the time i can finally buy a new computer for my kid who is about to go to college. or maybe i'll go to a restaurant, or, heaven forbid, i take a vacation once in a while. [laughter] and what happens is that suddenly businesses have more customers and they make more profits. and so folks at the top are doing very well, but the businesses -- because they're more profitable -- now they're hiring more workers, who then have more money, who then buy more products, who then give businesses more customers. [applause] that's how you grow an economy -- not from the top down, from the middle out, from the bottom up, giving everybody a fair shot. [applause] that's the choice in this election, and that's why i'm running for a second term as

president, because that's what i believe. that's my vision for the future. [applause] on just about every issue, governor romney and i just have a different opinion. when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, more than a million jobs at stake, governor romney said let's "let detroit go bankrupt." i said let's bet on american workers. and we got workers and management together, and they changed how they were doing business. and three years later, the american auto industry is back on top. [applause] that's what i believe. that's the kind of america we need. [applause] so now i want american manufacturing back in america. [applause] i want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are

shipping jobs overseas. let's give those tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in dubuque, right here in the quads, right here in iowa -- in cleveland and raleigh. [applause] let's put people back to work. [applause] governor romney likes to say, well, you know what, i know how to fix the economy, because i've been in the private sector. well, it turns out that a lot of that experience was investing in companies that were called "pioneers" in outsourcing. we don't need folks who know how to outsource. we need folks who are working to insource, to create jobs here, and hire american workers so we sell american products around the world stamped with three proud words: made in america. that's what i believe. [applause] on energy, governor romney has

said that he wants to get rid of the tax credit for wind energy -- doesn't believe in -- he says these sources of energy are "imaginary." congressman ryan calls them a "fad". he needs to come to iowa. he'll find out that there are 7,000 jobs in this state that depend on the wind industry. these jobs aren't a "fad." they're the future. [applause] we should stop giving $4 billion of taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that are making money every time you go to the pump. let's start investing in clean energy that will create jobs and secure our future. that's a difference in this election. [applause] i want to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world. [applause] i was just visiting some teachers before -- cascade middle school, right before i

came here. aren't you supposed to be at the in-service over there? [laughter] i won't tell. just don't get photographed. [laughter] and we had this great meeting -- and folks don't go into teaching for the money. they go into it because they believe in our kids, they believe in our future. [applause] but school districts all across iowa and all across the country are having a tough time -- budget cuts, teacher layoffs. so i've said let's help local school districts to make sure they can hire great teachers, especially in math and science, where we've got to really do better in terms of our performance. [applause] let's make sure that 2 million more people can go to community colleges to train for the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now. and let's bring down college tuitions once and for all for young people -- because higher education is not a luxury.

it's an economic necessity for young people. [applause] back in 2008, i said i would end the war in iraq -- we ended it. [applause] i said we would go after al qaeda and bin laden -- we did. [applause] we are transitioning and bringing our troops out of afghanistan. and so after a decade of war -- i say to folks none of this could have been accomplished if it hadn't been for our amazing men and women in uniform. [applause] so we've got to make investments to make sure that they're getting the services that they have earned, because they should never have to fight for a job when they have fought for this country. [applause]

and let's take half the money that we can save after a decade of war, and let's do some nation-building here at home. let's hire some hardhats to get on the job rebuilding roads and bridges, schools. that's good for the economy. that's where we need to take america. governor romney says his big economic plan -- in addition to these tax cuts for the wealthy -- he wants to kill obamacare. get rid of it. >> nooo -- >> now, first of all, i want you to know i kind of like the term "obamacare." [laughter] because i do care. that's why i passed the bill. i care about folks with preexisting conditions -- which is why, because of this law, they'll be able to get health insurance. [applause] i care about the 6.5 million young people who can now stay on their parent's plan because

of obamacare. [applause] i care about the seniors who have seen discounts on their prescription drugs. we're closing the doughnut hole because of the law that we passed. [applause] so if mr. romney and congressman ryan want to spend the next two and a half years having the sameçó argument we hd about health care all over again, they can feel free to try to do it. but the supreme court has spoken. it is the law of the land. we are moving forward to give every american the health security that they deserve. that is the difference in this election. [applause] on all these issues -- health care, manufacturing, education -- all these things that go into creating a solid, secure

middle-class life, all these issues tie together. it goes back to what michelle was talking about and what i started off with, and that is who we are, our values. you know, we've gone through tough times, but what hasn't changed is our character. americans are tough and we are resilient and we may get knocked down, but we bounce back up. and the other thing that we understand is what our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents taught us, which is, if you work hard, this is the country to be. [applause] that you may meet some barriers some times, there may be some hurdles, but you can't be stopped when you decide on something. and that's what's at stake in this election. do we affirm those values and pass them on to our kids and

our grandkids just like we got them from our parents and our grandparents? now, over the next three months you are going to see more negative ads than you've ever seen in your life. you've already seen them. and these folks on the other side, i mean, they're just writing $10 million checks. governor romney obviously has got more friends than i do that can write $10 million checks. [laughter] and they are just -- they are running these ads, and they're not selling a plan to create jobs or to grow the economy or revive the middle class. basically, they've got one message, and that is, the economy is not where it should be and it's obama's fault. and they're just going to say it over and over again. over and over again. you're going to get sick of it -- you already are. and you know, i've got to admit, i would be worried, given the amount of money that is being spent, if it weren't for iowa; if it weren't for what i remember about 2008. see, we've been outspent before.

we've been counted out before. but what i know is, when the american people cut through the nonsense and they focus on what's important, and when they remember what it means for us to have a country where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules -- when you guys decide what's important, you can't be stopped. when you pull together, you've got more power than any guy who is writing a $10 million check. [applause] and so, iowa, i'm going to need your help one more time, here, to finish the job. [applause] we've got more schools to build. we've got more folks to put back to work. [applause] we've got more roads to build. we've got more young people to send to college. we've got more troops to come home. [applause] and if you are willing to stand with me, and work with me, and make some phone calls with me

and knock on some doors with me, if you're still fired up, if you are still ready to go like i am, i promise you we will win iowa. we will win this election. we will finish what we started. and you and i together will remind the world why america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> coverage of the democratic

national convention. we have been showing every major party conventions since 1974. former justice sandra day o'connor testifies about the importance of civics education. then congressman chris van holland talks about the impact of the rhine budget on medicare and the economy. later artur david campaigns for mitt romney in vireda. that is followed by the president and first lady on a three day bus tour in iowa. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a co-founder of no labels talks about his organization's new making the presidency were campaign. in an examination and criticism by lawmakers.

the president of the association of private sector colleges and universities will be our guest. later, discussion on issues facing the self-employed in today's economy. we will hear from the president at the national association for the self-employed. "washington journal," live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sister mary talks thursday about the relationship between u.s. nuns and the vatican. she will address criticism leveled at the group who some say have views that go against the church. see it live starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> which is more important, self, or honor?

it is the kind of nation we are. it is whether we still possess the wit and determination to deal with many questions, including economic questions, but certainly not limited to them. i know this firsthand and sodium. all things flow from doing what is right. >> look at what has happened. we have the lowest combined rate of unemployment, inflation, and home mortgages in 28 years. look at what happened. 10 million new jobs, over half of them high wage jobs. 10 million workers getting the raise they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions in 1984. now we are in the countdown to this year's convention. you can watch live, gavel-to- gavel coverage, every minute of

the republican and democratic national conventions, live on c- span, c-span radio, and streamed online at c-span.org all starting monday, november 7. >> former justice sandra day o'connor and dedicated for civics education since retiring from the supreme court in 2006. she is founder and chairman of the war for an online project with free material for kids learning about the government. this is an hour and 25 minutes.

x before we get started, and justice o'connor is here. senator grassley is on his way. he was doing a conference call with students. i am jus wondering, all of you who are students in this room, would you please stand up? just so the justice can see. [applause] in the past, we have had justice

o'connor, i was telling her earlier that just this writer and scalia were here. we have had so many schools around the country who now have a dvd of that hearing. in the state of vermont, i have people stop me on the street who have seen the dvd and is a chance to learn. it is a learning experience that we try to do that. >> i recall we talked about this in the back when barry

goldwater came to see me to praise justice o'connor and say that she was making great justice, and he was absolutely right. she has been a leading voice for education. serves on the board of icivics. justice, you are pleased to see the number of students? >> [inaudible] i think it would be instructive for young people to have a chance to do that. >> and justice, you are bringing

a lot of students to washington. we are streaming this on our website. i think discussions like this serve our democracy. as public officials, we owe it to all americans to be transparent on what we do. we can show how our government works and how we are guided by the constitution. that constitution served over the years to make our nation more inclusive and our effort to be a more perfect union. a senator was doing his own outreach with students. it is quite a number.

two of them are political. the third branch judicially independent by design. both of the political branches come together in it is necessary to carry out their roles in our democracy. i have had a chance to vote on every desk this for the last 37 years. >> oh, my. >> justice kennedy and justice scalia and justice breyer. in the wake of the sitting chief justice, there is rhetoric about the chief justice.

he has been called a traitor for having betrayed george bush. these kind of attacks reveal the misguided notion that justices own some allegiance to the president who appointed them or to a political party. i have known the justices nominated by both parties. i did not vote to confirm individuals to the bench. i can find every justice i voted in which i agreed and

disagreed with. no one should demand political allegiance from any judge, whether nominated by a democrat or by a republican. as many sitting justices have noticed, we have the right as americans, including the supreme court. i find the opinion of justice ginsburg to college are congressional under the spending clause. it reveals a complete misunderstanding of our system to attack the chief justice and saying he has not followed a political party or showed allegiance.

she served on both the state bench and on the highest court in the land. at the last justice not to come from the judiciary monastery. she has traveled the world to teach emerging democracies about the importance of the rule of law. she focuses on the importance of civics education. as i told to privately, barry goldwater was such a good friend. at his request, i moved into his old office and i have been there for 30 years.

you would blush if you heard all the good things he said about you. >> i remember a hearing we have lasted that was very viable with justice scalia. it is very valuable. it is very valuable to have you here as well. you are the very first supreme just as i have ever had the chance to vote for. my first vote to the supreme court. i can say this looking back on on your years of service and performance justify the confidence that the senate placed in you. we would like to believe that

our judges whose independence is guaranteed by the constitution will based only on the constitution and not on their policy preferences. judicial independence was established to make the courts independent of the other branches and independent of popular view. it is not designed to make judges independent -- this is a view that i believe has set odds with the current reality and the history of our country. the leading reason for the so- called attack on judicial independence is often judges themselves. only a few weeks before the court pass health care decision, the supreme court

public approval of the court performance was 44-36 margin. but the article reported that after the ruling, that decision some have speculated was issued in part to reduce political opposition in the court and has appeared to accomplish exactly the opposite result if you want to go by that poll. the article states that most americans believe the decision was based mainly on the justice's personal political views. only 30% of americans say the decision was made mainly on the analysis. for myself, i respect the decision, even if i am disappointed by that decision. i question no one of's motives, but i do not think the poll results would be different. if only the public had a better

understanding of the court. i think the poll reflects that the public does have reason to suspect that politics enters into some justices' decision. they accept the decision anyway as shown by a polling. two-thirds were unpopular with a population when they were decided. all the unfortunate, this perception should not be a cause for alarm. as long as it does not lead to threats of violence, threats of impeachment, or threats to in prison judges for the ruling. such as when andrew jackson refused to be bound on the constitutionality of the bank

agreed the united states or when abraham lincoln refused to accept it because it reflected political bias. or when there roosevelt had a restriction of the power of the courts and gives to the people the fundamental authority. or when roosevelt tried to pack the supreme court tried to strike down new legislation. let us keep everything in perspective. it is not a violation of judicial independence for

senators to criticize court rulings that he or she believes to be incorrect. it is not a violation of judicial independence for a senator to conduct oversight of the judiciary. there are appropriate ways to ensure accountability. it is check and balance. it could be jeopardized when the president of the u.s. in his state of union speech to state a case in front of justices when the cannot respond. the president publicly misstates the process of judicial review and claims that the court's legitimacy and a particular justice's legacy will be tainted unless the court decides the case the way that the president wants that case decided. judicial independence is certainly weaken if does is

give in to those attacks rather than remain independent. all citizens in a democracy benefit from the participation of informed and active citizens. i think icivics site is a good one. citizens can challenge laws unconstitutional ground in state as well as federal courts. it should also say that a trial held for violation of state criminal law claims to violate the federal constitution would be held in state and not federal court. i have supported greater understanding of our constitutional system, i do not believe the federal government should develop a mandate civics standard. i do not think the framers of the constitution thought they

had given authority to impose such standards. justice o'connor, and look forward to listening to your views. >> thank you. >> and justice o'connor, we are talking about icivics. as i look at this, the man in the front looks very much like a grandson of mine. please, we welcome you here. the floor is yours. >> thank you, senator leahy. i will welcome questions that you and the other senator has to direct a conversation. you brought up the subject of icivics. it is a website that relies on games to teach young people how

government works. we have a wonderful group of skilled teachers of middle and high school levels who have helped advise us on the topics that we should cover on the next icivics game and so forth. . . next icivics game and so forth. they have helped us in developing the website. we have attempted to develop games that enhance the ability and teachers to teach young people how our government works. i went to school and a long time ago. i went to school in el paso, texas. my parents lived in a ranch that was too remote for school. i lived with my grandparents during the school term in el paso and went to school there.

i remember having a lot of civics class is based on texas history. i got pretty sick and tired of it. i thought it was miserable. i hope today's civics teachers will be able to make it more interesting than i found it in those days. that is one of the reasons for developing the icivics site a series of games that young people can play. this system has worked very effectively. recently in texas, there has to do a study of icivics through the education department to see the text of this to see if it is effective the students. the study produced exceedingly

encouraging results. i was thrilled to get the report about what they found from the use by students of that website and the games in it. i am encouraged by it. it shows me that young people need to know how our government works and how they are part of it. it is self-evident. in the school's today, it is not widely taught. young people want to know how to be effective. they want to know their roles as citizens and how to make things happen at the local level, the state level, and the national level. icivics tries to do that and help young people develop their own proposals and learn in the process about how government works. i think the effort is effective

and appreciated. i have chair people in all 50 states, including in vermont. it is doing well, i think. i welcome feedback from you and others. your constituents on how you all think how we can improve on how we are doing. schools can use the program at no charge. that is important in today's circumstances where money is not often available for schools to develop new programs. but i hope that your constituents will report back to you occasionally on the effectiveness of icivics and keep you informed. i welcome your suggestions as you have them when we go forward. i hope i will hear back from you if you have any suggestions for

us. >> thank you. again, i appreciate you doing this. we will be sure to get some feedback from vermont. >> absolutely. the town where my ancestors settled after the revolution. it has not grown much, i am afraid. [laughter] >> very special people coming from that part of the state, including my wife of nearly 50 years. justice o'connor, you have commented on how the tax injustices can be applied to judicial independence. -- attacks on justices can

impact judicial independence. >> it is unfortunate. comments like that demonstrate only too will the lack of understanding that some of our citizens have about the role of the judicial branch. i think the framers of our federal constitution did a great job in understanding themselves that the judicial branch needed to be able to make independent decisions on the legitimacy and the lawfulness of actions at the state and federal level when they are properly raised in court. the framers did a really good job in that regard. it is not every state that has followed the federal model.

under the federal model, judges are not elected. they are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. in many states, that is the process, but not all. many states have popular election of judges. the result of that has been the need for candidates to raise money for their election campaign. i think that has a corrupting influence on the selection of judges. it is disappointing to me to see as many states as there are if using judicial elections. i hope more states will follow the federal model and have a system of judicial appointments. many of the states that have these have a process of confirmation or selection that

involves public input. that is fine. but i think the federal model has been a good one for the states. >> i agree. that is a model that we follow in vermont. it works very well. it has taken politics completely out of our judicial system. we recently had a new federal district judge. her name was recommended from our bipartisan screening board. i recommend her name to the president hu. interesting enough -- i am recommended her name to the president. interesting enough, to this day

i have do not have the slightest idea of where the politics are. while a judge might be and should be appreciative, as you were up president reagan possible nomination, your allegiance is to the law and not the president who nominated you. >> the allegiance of every federal judge as to the constitution of the u.s. and the laws that are adopted by congress. that allegiance, i think, enables judges to resolve the cases. they rely on presidents. we follow the british model of years ago in which a case resolved by the nation's highest

court, the principles established will be followed by the lower courts in the future until the courts to change the models ordered the rule. i think the system works quite well. it's served us well in the u.s. through the years, i think. we have a good federal court system over all, in my opinion. >> let me ask you about that. during the primaries earlier this year, there were a couple of candidates who said that those of us in political office should be more involved in the court. one even suggested eliminating the circuit court of appeals. he disagreed with one of the opinions. we have heard others say that we

have the power and the courts in the supreme court that any time we have a disagreement, we would have a hearing and we move that. i remember standing side by side with barry goldwater on the floor to fight an effort by one senator. the case is where the water do you agree with that? >> i certainly do. i think our system is a good one. sometimes a court, a federal court, for example, will resolve simple issue in a way that not

everyone likes. certainly in a body like that u.s. senate comprised of republicans and democrats and occasionally an independent, you will have some disagreement among members of this very body about whether a particular ruling of a federal court is correct or the best ruling that the court could have made. obviously there will be differences of opinion. under our system, and issue that is divisive will sometimes come up again in the courts in a different posture. you have related issues. over time, the courts themselves will have a chance to review the president's and the effective -- the precedence and

effectiveness. the system has served the system quite well, i think. >> one last question. let me ask you this -- with all this question about diversity -- you were the first woman to serve on the supreme court. i praised president reagan at the time for that. diversity is more than just that. diversity of backgrounds. you have had a lot of experience. today diversity in court, we have some wonderful people. they come from the same backgrounds. do you think we should push for more diversity? >> i think over the nation posset history, we have had a

very diverse group of judges on the court. history, we have had a very diverse group of judges on the court. people who have served on the federal district courts and appeals -- that is not a requirement. the president is free to choose the two people with very different backgrounds. there is no requirement that the person appointed be a lawyer. i think it would have it pretty hard time if they do not have legal training, but there is no requirement in the selection of a justice. in the first 100 years, i think

we have a lot more diversity on the court. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> you did bring up the election of state justices. is what you said leaning more towards the federal system than what the states do? >> well, many states still have appointment system for state judges. it includes a system where after many years on the bench, the judge goes on the ballot in the state where voters can decide whether to retain the judge, yes or no. that is the system we have in arizona. that is the system that i helped develop in my prior years in arizona.

voters have a chance to look at the record of the judge and say, do you want to keep this judge? yes or no? not many have been turned out of office in that system. i think it is a perfectly balanced system for a state to adopt. the federal system does not have that. you did not have a system where after a few years on the supreme court of the voters in america can have a chance to say whether justice should be retained or not. i think the federal system has worked very well. i am not proposing any change. but those states to use retention elections have had pretty good luck with them. very few people are turned out. >> i want to refer to an article from 2008 that you wrote, "i regret the threats to judicial independence seemed to

be recurring with a record frequency. for their decisions on various issues." i do not find fault with what you wrote, but i want to explore with you some situations and see whether they could pose threats to judicial independence. could judicial independence be threatened if the state had a state of unit address in front of justices who were not in a position to respond and criticized supreme court decisions? >> i do not know if it threatens judicial independence. it is not something as citizen expects to here in the president of's state of union message -- president's state of union message.

it is unusual. >> another question -- could judicial independence be jeopardized if the president misstates a doctrine of judicial review and claim a particular ruling would harm the court's legitimacy and claim that a particular justice's legacy would be tainted unless he decides the case in a manner that the president presumably wants? >> if there is a pending decision at the supreme court and a president were to express views along those lines, it would be surprising. it is unusual. to speak out at some higher political level either at the state and national level about a decision on a pending case. i guess it will happen, but it is not what we expect and it is

not ideal. >> last week, could traditional independence be jeopardized if a justice decides it is in a different way than his original and you do to presidential pressure or that the court would sustain political damage? >> i am sure that many things go through the minds of a justice in a pending case were a tough issue has to be decided. the justice may learn things that cause the justice to shift the tentative outcome in some fashion. you can continue to learn up until you have signed on to some decision. i would not preclude that. i think it is always possible.

it is not often that it occurs. >> since i still have time, what would you think are the most important elements of the court system as students should learn? it corrects the system needs to give -- >> this is dumb knees to give some independence of the judge making -- >> the system ne some independence of the judge making decisions. to do so, fairly and independently. that is the concept. that is what i think the average citizen should be able to understand is the concept and trust that is what is going to happen. >> i will make a comment. i do not know where you are on

this. the chairman and i promote cameras in the courtroom. we do it because we think there is a lot of mystery about the judicial branch of government and the education of the people by having more people have access to the court room would be a very good thing to do. i would like to take my last minute to advocate for cameras in the courtroom. >> i would advocate for that. i am all for it. >> i yield back my time. >> only speak if you are in favor of it. [laughter] >> and then i'd better keep my mouth shut. [laughter] you andustice o'connor, i have noted the other for a long time. it is refreshing to have you here. i respect your view anyway.

i have a soft spot in my heart for former prosecutors as you know. >> thank you for being here. to the appreciate it. when we have a confirmation hearing for elena kagen, i spoke about your background. before the age of 14, you were able to use a rifle, a herd cattle, and ride a horse. >> absolutely. i lived in a very remote land. everyone had to be able to do everything as soon as they were old enough to do it. >> you came from such humble beginnings. you were able to achieve so much in this country. i wanted to start with that.

where did you think the reason is that we are seeing such a decline in civics education? how do we improve it? >> frankly, part of it is because we have learned to our dismay that our american students when tested on math and science are not doing as well students of an equivalent age for many other countries. i think that distresses us because our country has been pretty advanced in math and science. we do not want to see our students lag behind. we need an effort to increase education in those areas. it has resulted in the dropping of civics courses. there are only so many hours in the day and schools have to concentrate on something. they might do more math and science and less on civics.

i would like to be sure that we continue to teach civics distance. my own concentration has been at the middle school -- teach civics to students. my own experience at the middle school -- i think it is important. students want to know how government works, how their city, county, state, nation works. the want to be a part of it. icivics teaches them by way of games. the young people play a role and they learned. it is very effective. in many cases, it is being used in 50 states. students using it can learn how to take a project and get it through some city council level

or some kind of county level or even a state legislative level. it is great when they do. the earlier you learn how government works and how you can be part of it, the better it is. >> i agree. my daughter is 17. one of my favorite project she did is that she interviewed a senator for an hour. i think it was about a 50-page power point presentation for her class. >> that is great. >> it is very good. i come from a state where we have very high voter turn out. it is such a value in our state to get involved. i think it is a major problem of the distance the public feels from the government. as a former prosecutor, we would

find that it was not always the result in a case that matters to people, but how they are treated through the system. if the understand what is going on, they trust the system. we did a survey on this. if you're not feeling them in on what happened and they have no understanding, they feel mistreated by the system. i appreciate your emphasis. i look forward to working with you on this. i have some other questions. one is on a supreme court nomination. think we can do to improve them? i think there are still important for the public. what can be done? perhaps it is miserable from the point of the nominee. -- >> it is miserable from the

point of the nominee. for the public, it might be the only chance for them to see a nominee and have some appreciation of their style and their manner and how well the answer the question and to have some understanding of the process. it really does matter to the public. i think the system in that regard works very well. >> what did think of the nominee asking questions s? to me, i know people want to have a chance, but it seems very political in terms of it. >> it is. that is that nature of it. you are the political branch of government here. >> my favorite one was one of the people that came on.

he had known her when she was 12. what was she like when she was 12? he said, she was very judicious. [laughter] maybe we could change that part of the process. it seemed very pro and con. >> it would be hard to do. you have a vote at the end. members expressed their view. that is hard to change. >> one last thing. i know you have been a vocal advocate on the judicial elections. in we have seen elections in recent years. are there any reforms you could suggest? >> this is very important. i think the federal model of federal election is the best

model. some states have followed it, but not all. in a number of states, they still have a totally elective process for selecting judges. i think that is very unfortunate. it means raising money for campaigns. there is no way to be comfortable with that in the judicial scheme of things. it is not good to have judges that you know who have had to take campaign contributions from certain interests. it is a worry. i hope that more and more states will follow the federal model of not having judicial elections. many state, in fact my own, have intentional elections periodically. they are there for some time. the judge's name goes on the ballot. the voters can vote on whether they keep the judge on the ballot. they're not running against

anyone. that seems to have worked fairly well. not many judges are removed in that process. but it is one way of having the voters involved to some degree. it seems to have worked to some extent. >> very good. thank you for being here. >> i am glad to be here. >> thank you senator lee. >> i did not say you come in. i'm sorry. >> i am easy to forget. it is a pleasure to have you with us. i remember when you would ask my father questions from behind the bench. i never thought i would be sitting behind a different bench and asking you questions. >> your father did a really great job. we miss him. >> thank you in. >> i agree with that.

>> we miss him. he was a proud arizonan. >> i used to see him in the state senate and in committee hearings. he would come in and present materials on various issues affecting the state. he was effective in that regard as well. he really was an amazing man. >> that is good to know. thank you. i want to follow up with you on the economy made about retention elections. you indicated that the impact -- the tendency to politicize the state judicial system that those elections would have is limited that they tend not to result in the removal of the judicial officer. >> not very often. >> is there a possibility that they might nonetheless have some

politicizing a faeffect? is there a chance there might affect the judge's decision making process? >> well, i guess there is always a chance. i prefer a system that does not have elections at all, but many states have the retention election. at a minimum, it gives the voters the opportunity to say, yes, i am satisfied with this- and i vote to retain this judge, or the reverse. not many are removed. >> one critical difference between the retention election and another type of election is that it is not tested. >> that is right. there is not a lot of campaign contribution being raised. >> it typically require something of a supermajority

vote. >> it depends on the state. >> that is right. >> what about the judicial nominating commissions that are within states? i believe you have been an advocate in what has sometimes been referred to as the missouri approach. members meet and give advice to the governor on whom to appoint. do you support that model? >> yes, i do. it is a model that i help support in my home state of arizona. it has worked well. i think it is a pretty decent model. >> is there an argument to be made that elections like that might insulate the governor from the political process in a way that is not helpful and less accountable to the voters? >> i have not seen it that way. the governor needs to make the

appointment and say, yes, i will consider these names and this is who i will pick. i think it has worked out all right. >> yes. in my state, i believe the governor has the option to reject entire slate. >> that is true in my state, too. if the governor believes he did not get any good names, he can reject the whole batch. >> i think i heard to say a minute ago that you think the federal system is the best model. just for the federal or for ou - >> that is up to each state to decide on the level of voter participation that you need to have to make this system work for your state. there are some mixed models that most states seem to have where

voters have a retention election. we do not have that at the federal level. >> right. >> but if the state thinks it helps, fine. it does not seem to do much damage. it is ok. if the voters in a state approve of that, i think it is all right. >> ok. but you are fine with the federal model the way it is? >> that is correct. >> with a state system gets bad -- i know of your concerns with the states that have contested partisan elections to fill the vacancies at the onset. i think it is difficult to reconcile that with the need for judicial independence. when you have a state system that follows that approach and a state system that apparently is in a properly influenced from

time to time in a destructive way, do you think there is ever a reason for the federal government to consider intervening? or is it up to the state? >> it is up to the state. most states, if you are going to consider something that affects a stick at large, they will have an opportunity to hear from voters on the proposal and have some debate at the state level. that is good. >> but you would not regard that as a due process concern of the sort that would warrant federal legislation requiring states to do it one way or the other? >> no, i do not think so. we left the states free to choose their own method of judicial selection. >> right. i certainly agree with that. finally, you were a long time

advocate of federalism while on the supreme court. a strong believer in the fact that there is a difference between state power and federal power. >> yes. >> we have to respect that for our system to operate correctly. what would you advise to federal lawmakers about how best to protect that system? and the distribution of power between state government on one hand and the federal on the other? >> well, all members of this body, the senate, come from one of the 50 states. you're all representative of your states. you have experience in the allstate on what the borders care about in terms of judicial election. i am sure all of you have had that. i do not think i need to give any advice on this.

>> we do get advice from time to time. >> all right. >> thank you, the justice. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. i told you privately before, i agree with justice o'connor's reference to your father. we have a senator from connecticut, a former general attorney of the state. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former attorney general for some 20 years, i am a very strong believer in federalism. i would agree with senator lee that we get advice, but i would also say that we need advice. any ideas you have on that score -- but also, i want to focus on a point senator

grassley made in his earlier remarks. we dismiss poll numbers when the results do not suit us, but they're still reflective of something happening. the reason we are here is because of the need to educate the public about what you did for many years with such distinction and dedication in serving on the u.s. supreme court. we have a reverence if not respected institution and the need to preserve the legitimacy and credibility of the institution. i wonder if you can give us your assessment as to why there has been this decline in the

public's approval or respect for the institution? >> i wish i knew. i did not conduct the polls. i am not sure. i have read some articles about the polling that took place and the argument being made that perhaps the decline -- the percentage of u.s. voter approval of the supreme court historically has been hired then of the other two branches. in a very recent months, it seems to have declined rather substantially. this suggestion has been made that that began with the bush- gore decision. i have no idea if that is correct in the assessment of the polling. it was a very tense case that

involved holdovers from a very close election. people felt deeply about it. perhaps that was the tipping point of the decline. i hope it will be temporary. the supreme court functions extremely well. as a look worldwide, we can be proud of our court. it has served the nation well. by and large, it is a marvelous institution. i would think over time opinion would turn upward again. i certainly hope so. i would expect that. >> i would agree with to certainly in the assessment of the supreme court's work and in the hope that public approval will increase over time. as somebody who has done arguments in the court and has been a law clerk in the work and

watch and observe the court, i think the public often simply does not see the work that the court does. by and large it, it is day to day work that is much more mundane and complicated. i wonder whether increasing public access to the courts -- court? cameras in the >> i know you were asked that. [laughter] >> it is important to remember every word said in that court is transcribed and available that same night. if anyone paris it is. you have it, in hand.

it is not that there is a lack of ability to know what is going on. is there. it is just, do we have to have it on camera and on the television, or is it enough that it can be available that very night and you can read it? i guess it boils down to that. i am a reader. do not ask me, probably. i tend to read more than i watch television. >> i am not going to comment on reading of versus television. everyone has his or her own style of learning. in light of the prevalence of television and the the impact, the powerful effect, the visual portrayal, i wonder whether you think that it might be worth

considering opening at least certain arguments to a broader view and, if not that, whether there is some way of increasing the potential attendance at supreme court arguments? after all, the numbers of people permitted in the courtroom is very small compared to the -- >> it is limited. the courtroom is not all that large. you'll never have a huge crowd that will fit in the courtroom. there are some adjacent chambers where you can hear it. but not see it. i guess this is a discussion that is going to continue for a while. you have members of the quartet present who are not at all comfortable with televising the proceedings. i think that if and when a change is made it will probably be more likely to be made when members of the courts are

willing to accept that. >> some members of the court have sat where you are right now and said, in the fact, and i am taking great license, with their remarks, in effect, not over my dead body. that is how he meant they were in opposition to televising the court hearings. i think that, if i may respectfully suggest, you are in a unique position because not only are you a highly respected member of the court, but you also have the perspective of many years in different branches and at the state level and so forth. your opinion would carry great weight if and when you are willing to set forth. >> my opinion is there should be general agreement that that is a good move to make. if there is severe opposition coming from the court itself, that is a source of concern, i

think. it is best if everybody is in it sink on at that kind of move. >> i want to thank you for being a year today, for honoring us with your presence, and for your many years of extraordinary work for our justice system. my time has expired, but i really think that your presence and your testimony have jobs to enhance education. >> thank you, senator. i have been spending enormous time on my civics effort to educate young people how our government works and how they can be part of it. i will say that i think that the method we are using with the games is extremely effective. we had a test at baylor university -- they came back with extraordinarily good reviews of the effectiveness,

which is encouraging in the extreme. we will continue to develop additional games on somewhat different topics to keep people informed and engaged. it works with young people. i am excited about it. it would be wonderful if, when you speak to schools in your state, you could encourage them to use it. it does work. >> i would be honored and delighted to do it. very much so. i hope that we can follow up as members of the committee and then more about how we can do that. >> i have managed to keep it free. with today's costs and changing programs, that has been important. >> free is good. >> i think so to. >> mr. chairman, i want to note that one justice who came before this committee, justice kagan, said they wanted it televised.

so maybe we will see that change to refer to over signed -- time. a thank-you. >> we had the debate of televising -- i do not know if you were here or not. we had some who were vehemently against it. somewhere in favor of it. others who could go either way, i think. notwithstanding some grandstanding since then, it has been a good thing for the american public to see how we deliberate. thank you for being here. before you came, you know there were a lot of students in the room. that is no doubt in relation to the justice and civil courts. we have a lot of students in the room. go ahead, sir. >> justice o'connor, it is great

to have you with us. -- i.s.o. tree believe, having trouble around the world -- i so truly believe, having traveled around the world, i am more convinced of the precious nature of the rule of law in america than i have ever been. >> absolutely. it matters. we have been promoting that since the breakup of the soviet union. i think that the american guard reserves -- deserves some credit. when the soviet union began to break up, lawyers gathered together and serve as unpaid volunteers in many of these countries to help develop judicial systems and the notion of the rule of law. >> i could not agree more. i would just say, i will remember, after the i iraq

invasion, being with general petraeus, he had established a court, found judges, appointed lawyers and have trowels like we do. >> yes. >> -- trials like we do. >> yes. >> you know that it takes many years, decades, even centuries to create the kind of legal system we are blessed to have in the united states. >> it does. you cannot do it overnight or in a year or even two or three years. it takes long term development. >> i am of the view that the court needs to maintain its independence, its attachment from politics, as much as it possibly can. to the extent that justices are concerned, cameras might be load that -- a road that even a

little bit and put more political spin on the careful legal work they do -- i support the court in not having cameras in the courtroom live. i would just say that i fundamentally think it is a decision left to the judicial branch, not the legislative branch. i remember being in the chair when robert byrd spoke. he would come down on friday at 11:00 and make speeches pretty often. that was my time to preside. he made a speech about textbooks. he discussed democracy and the republic, and the differences between the two, and how the text books had not properly delineated the difference. his closing line was that it was touchy-fee lee twaddle in our textbooks.

the extent to which you are working to help our young people understand this magnificent legal system that we have, i thank you very much. i would pursue this a little further -- to me, the most pernicious thing that could be taught to young people is that the courts are not independent adjudicator is of discreet legal problems. that they are somehow a part of the political process and their rulings are based on political stresses and pressures and views of justices -- this could erode the kind of respect that americans should give to the court. is that a concern for you? >> very much so. i agree with you completely. it is best to maintain the independence of the judicial

branch. that is what the framers designed. it has worked quite well out the federal level. we need to try to maintain it at the state level as well. i happen to think that holden judicial elections in states is not the best way to go. that gets too much political influence in there and campaign contributions. that is dangerous. we do not need to do that. >> i can see that concern. i'm not sure i share it, but i certainly understand it. it is a valid concern. the constitution contemplates that the courts would be independent adjudicator is. i was pleased when justice roberts referred to it as an independent, neutral umpire, like in the ballgame. the umpire does not take sides but does its best every day to call strikes. i think that is a image or

metaphor that is valid and that we should push. there are times when people on both sides think the court does not do that. >> i am sure. >> they think the court has allowed personal, it is logical, or political insights to impact -- ideological, or political insights to impact decision making. do you agree that justice is should guard against that and live in the oath to be a judge under the constitution and the loss of the united states? >> of course i do. i served on that court for 25 years. i entered it without a lot of inside knowledge, but with respect for the structure the framers developed. i left after 25 years with the knowledge and understanding that it works remarkably well along

those lines. i think we have been fortunate. >> i think, my personal view is that the great danger to the independence of the american judiciary would be a belief on the part of the american people that it is not adhering to that role, but is using the power to interpret the words of statutes in the constitutions to rejigger the constitution to advance an agenda. that would be a great tragedy if that were to happen, if people were to lose confidence. with regards to criticize in the courts, i believe, an american citizen has a right to question the court, but i believe we should do it respectfully. some of the criticism i have

seen from the congress has been over the top, but i would set that, in my view, if a nominee comes before this judiciary committee for confirmation and the they are not philosophically committed to the limited role of a judge or the record indicates they are not, i cannot give them license -- that is my standard. in the range of disagreement on how to interpret laws, if you are outside that, i should not give you a lifetime appointment. good people can disagree. sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not about where that line should be drunk. i do agree that congress has a role to try to ensure that the

judiciary remains a neutral umpire, would you not agree? >> yes. the senate plays a key role in the overall process in terms of agreeing that the out set who will be serving and who will not. >> i would conclude by saying how much i appreciate your interest in educating the next generation. >> yes. >> i am convinced that we are not fully appreciative of the uniqueness of the wonderful legal system we have and how it is unlike almost any nation in the world. it has served us magnificently. it has treated our growth, prosperity, and freedom. if we have misconceptions about how the legal system works, i think it could endanger -- thank you, justice o'connor, for sharing your thoughts with us. >>

supreme court justices have come before us. it is partly a educational sen. -- educational think. -- thing. the views the here and some other countries are kind of unopened -- i opener. one nation had a very totalitarian former governor and -- a government that moves towards democracy. a group of their leaders came to see me. they said, is it true that in your country sometimes people sue the government? i said, yes, it happens all the time. they said, is it true that sometimes the government loses? i said, it often happens. they said, did you replace the

judge -- and do you replace the judge? when i explained, it was like the cartoon where a lightbulb goes on. they realize that we really are different. you and the icivs web site -- the majority of supreme court justices in the game supreme a decision are women. >> that is my fault. [laughter] family camey wife's from canada. in canada, the majority of the supreme court are women. >> the chief justice in canada is a woman. they have historically had more women than we have. >> that is right. to what extent do you think diversity on the court or

anywhere in the top of our branches increases public confidence? >> i think it does. our citizens like to look at the u.s. senate and see some diverse faces, skin color, etc. -- they like that at the judicial level as well. four courts of record that have multiple members. i think it gives the citizens some confidence. >> in an interview a few years ago, you noted that statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence. people do. >> wright. >> what people are you referring to? >> the judges, for one thing, and the voters to in the states put in a system that enables the citizens to have confidence in that system. that system. >> describe the