♪

♪

>> this year watch gavel-to- gavel coverage of the conventions. coverage of the republican convention begins august 27. the democratic convention begins september 4. host: we will take a look at the auto industry and money spent because of the bailout.

detroit to talk about this. good morning. guest: good morning. host: there was a report from treasury that takes a look at the money we spent on the auto bailout and what possibly we could lose as far as federal dollars are concerned. could you encapsulate what that report says? guest: the report from last week extended the loss on the bailout to $21.50 billion. that is an increase from the previous estimate at the end of february. a lot of it comes down to two factors. one is the loss in the value of gm stock prices. that is one of the driving factors. secondly, the diminished value of college financial during the second quarter. the mortgage unit filed for bankruptcy. the treasury estimated what the investment is worth.

it comes down to gm stock price, which has been hit by a variety of factors and falls far short of its ipo price. host: the potential loss of $25 billion, what could be potentially lose? guest: is significantly better. initially, the u.s. government estimated around a $44 billion loss. the total bailout totaled $80 billion, so over half. that was amended to around $30 billion at the end of 2009. the new estimate is not near as bullish as the estimate we saw last year in 2011, which went as low as $14 billion. it seemed to ebb and flow with the fortunes and enthusiasms of the gm stock price. it ipo's at $33 a share and is now around $22. for the treasury to break even, it has to get to 52 -- it has to

get to $52. host: talk about what is happening at gm to cause stock prices to be so low. guest: there are a couple of different factors. the most significant -- it comes down to three. the first is your. gm has the opal brand in europe that has been faltering for close to a dozen years. it has a dozen years of losses. gm is aware of this. the ceo replaced the head of opal in an effort to turn around the brand much faster. in addition to that, there is also pensions. that is one of these great legacy costs' gm struggled with for decades. gm has probably the largest pension plan of any company in the s&p 500 at the moment. the company has done a lot of things to undercut the rest and move some of the obligations of the balance sheet. it is not enough. it is still a large pension obligation.

they have to make further inroads in mitigating that. there is still some question about whether gm has changed as a company, whether the cultural change has changed the companies bad practices. the bailout gave them a balance sheet makeover. in terms of how decisions are made and bureaucracy, gm still has a long way to go. there seems to be investor concern about whether they have spurred that change rapidly

enough. host: when you say culture, it does that mean that decisions about what kind of cars are built or does it go further than that? guest: exactly. it also comes down to making decisions rapidly, how quickly is gm making decisions? how many lawyers does something have to go through before it is decided -- how many layers does it have to go through before it is decided? one thing that has puzzled analysts and investors is the alliance with peugot in europe. gm says this would allow them to share development costs with the french car maker that has gone through the same struggles as of the automaker in europe has been a lot of those things

you will not see until 2017, five years out. analysts and investors were puzzled. this -- there seem to be more pressing issues now. gm was shopping for a long-term solution with peugot. things like that are not being clearly articulated to wall street. that is affecting the gm share price. host: we're talking about the treasury department report. the bailout could cost taxpayers about $25 billion. steve joins us from detroit for the discussion. if you want to ask a question, we have numbers to call. the first call comes from nevada.

the republican line, good morning. caller: i want to ask the woman he was having --you was having, what does she think about obama bragging about the bailout of gm if there's going to be $25 billion we will not get back? we own 500 million stocks right now. it is valued at $20. until we get our money back -- host: ok, go ahead. guest: this is a great question. the bailout has become fodder for political debate.

with the obama administration taking credit for the bailout and calling it one of the unmitigated successes. the romney campaign is really criticizing it. i think the caller brings up an interesting point. the gm stock price has foundered since its ipo in the fall of 2010. we are looking at a $25 billion loss. it is important to remember the loss estimates fluctuate on the gm stock price. it is important to also way the white house response. that is the bailout was not intended to make money for u.s. taxpayers. it was intended to preserve jobs. the white house and senate both predicted about 1 million jobs were saved by the bailout when you are weighing 1 million jobs versus a real risk to the

economy, which is what bankruptcy of gm and chrysler would have entailed during a recession, the white house thinks it was worth it. they think about the 1 million jobs saved. they say it is worth it even though we will take a hair cut. the caller is right. we're definitely taking a hair cut. the treasury still owns 500 million shares. they wanted to exit by now. that does not seem to be practical given where the stock price is. they were looking to maximize returns to the extent possible. we will always be looking at a cost. host: a question about the vote and how that is going. -- a question about the volt in-house sales are going. guest: this became the centerpiece of the ipo offering a few years ago. i do not have exact figures for sales, but last year, they fell

short of expectations. it is hard with vehicles like the volt which embraces new technology. americans have been slow to adopt this technology. they're still expensive because of battery costs. they are out of the reach of most americans. they seem to ebb and flow with fuel prices. it is unpredictable. earlier this year, gm refrained from giving too many expectations on the volt. last year, they sold less than half of what they predicted in 2011. it is hard to say how they are doing. we do not have the full year estimate or out what to compare it to. the fact that gm fell short last year and has refrained from giving any outlook this year on sales indicates they are starting to see this is still a burgeoning area for

sales. ev's and hybrids will always be tricky to sell to the american public. we're in the opening of this particular trend. host: john, go ahead. caller: about 10 years ago, and read an article about how the outcome of a pre-arrange bankruptcy with the government would be. the long and short of it is that this stock was a hybrid stock. the american taxpayers did get the shaft. i agree with the previous caller. all of the congress got paid

back 100% on their purchases. they were right on the money, barron's knew exactly what was going to happen. what happened was this was a hybrid. it was a debt instrument. stockholders were supposed to be wiped out. everybody but the unions got wiped out. however, that is not true. i expect there would be an examination and investigation of how this could have happened when a few people like myself do their homework, really got the shaft. host: go ahead. guest: the callers experience is unfortunately, across the board. a lot of people lost a lot of money. that is a hallmark of this particular bail out. the pain is shared across the

board. the caller brings up that everybody but the unions seemed to get the short end of the stick this time around. this is a common perspective. we hear is a lot. do we hear a lot. -- we here in a lot. people say it is not necessarily true. the unions did take a lot of concessions. they almost balked at the deal. some of the choices they have to make were really tough. you are talking about the elimination and closure of factories, the loss of jobs, the elimination of the jobs bank. that is one of the most significant concessions the uaw had to make during the bailout talks. that is the policy that allowed workers to get 95% of their pay indefinitely if they were idle. i understand the caller's anger. it is

widespread. a lot of people lost a lot of money. currently, there are people frustrated because they bought into the gm ipo at $33 a share. they bought early on. they are seeing the value of those shares under water. the anger he is expressing is common and valid. a lot of people share it. host: $80 billion spent rescuing gm and chrysler. the u.s. currently holds about 500 million shares of gm stock. no sales are planned before the november election. this is king george, virginia, kenny on independent line. caller: i love to watch c-span on weekend mornings. it is sometimes the highlight of my weekend. i have to make a comment about

the last session about immigration. i would think with -- is msnbc taking over this network? let's not do this again. thank you. host: bill, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question and like to make two comments. the first comment is about the volt. i worked at that plant and retired in 2008. the government forced them to push it out too fast. the second comment, thank you, america, for taking care of my pension. i appreciate it. the steel workers and others will appreciate help. they did not get none. they did not have the political

power, i guess. they offered bailouts to salary workers at ford and gm, do you think they will do it with the [unintelligible] guest: yes, i do. in ago, there is a side letter in the gm contract which opens the possibility of a discussion between the union and gm about ways to eliminate pension obligations. that would be to hourly workers. the caller is talking about a pension buyout initiated by ford and gm earlier this year.

the pension problem is an extraordinary issue for gm and ford, gm, ford, and chrysler, but gm and ford have been in the news recently. to offer one staggering statistics, for the 15 years that ended in 2006, gm put $55 billion in to worker pension plans and only paid $13 billion in dividends. it is true that the gm pension risk is the largest of any company in the s&p. earlier this year, both gm and ford made significant inroads in trying to get this risk of the table. gm did it with salaried workers, the white-collar workers, engineers and the like. they shifted $26 billion in obligations over to prudential and offered buyouts to about 42,000 of those salaried retirees.

about 118,000 retirees and their dependants were affected. monthlystill get pension checks, but they will be from provincial and not gm. the hourly workers represented by the uaw represent the lion's share of the pension risk. that is 440,000 people that get monthly pension checks from gm. it is a sensitive issue. workers joined gm because they thought they would be protected for life. a lot of them did not go to college because they decided not to take other opportunities because they were promised lifetime security by gm and ford. the idea of 30 plus years later having to -- being asked to forgo that right and promise is tough to swallow for a lot of people.

at the same time, these companies have a responsibility to investors to manage the company in a way that is fair and intelligent. the pension risk is one of the top risks to gm stock. the side letter in the contract last year between gm and the uaw opens the possibility of discussion that there could be buyouts. my understanding is employees represented by the uaw would not go for this. at the annual shareholder meeting, this is something they would like to do. the former head of the auto

task force says the same thing. this would be a smart thing for the uaw to consider. it is a conversation to come in years to come. host: off of twitter, consumers are the real job creators. speculation is fruitless. on the republican line. go ahead. caller: my name is mark ewing. in december, i decided to run for congress. i withdrew in march because of the redistricting debacle we went down here. my retirement plan, i had some investment in the ventures for gm.

we got in low. i sold out of everything after the two-year holding period. when the issue stock, i got out as soon as i could. i recognized having the government in there was bad. one of the concerns i have is the priority system we have up in bankruptcy today. one of the problems we have is they put retirement first for that particular corporation. the problem we have is most of the common shareholders that were wiped out in this thing

were from people holding it in their retirement plans. we are seeing a preference for the actual workers, the corporation, the uaw workers with excession demand for wages and lack of concessions prior to the bankruptcy who drove the company into that position. host: thank you. miss seetharaman? guest: this is indicative of the anger we hear about the bailout and the feeling the union was given preferential treatment. it is a contentious issue. a lot of people share it. the consensus among analysts and people who track this is the union alone did not bring these companies into bankruptcy. it was not the union alone. there are also issues of the quality of the vehicles they are selling.

no matter what kind of labor agreement you have, if you are not selling quality vehicles, you will not be successful. that seems to be a common thread among the analysts we speak to regularly. the issue that the union got favorable treatment is a common one. it angers a lot of people. i would reiterate what i said earlier. the union did take some steep concessions. at the end of the day, they are the workers that build the vehicle. i think the auto task force has the responsibility to make sure that there was respect for the fact the uaw workers build the vehicles and work in the factories. there are no easy choices and right answers. there is a lot of anger. it is very common. the previous calls are emblematic of that. host: our guest is deepa

seetharaman from reuters out of detroit to talk about the auto bailout and potential losses, a cost of about $25 billion. detroit, michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to thank obama for helping save the iowa -- the auto. more jobs were lost besides working for the big three. my husband was -- he did not work at the big three, but his job was saved because of that. other jobs were saved. they did have to make concessions. he had to give up some health

care benefits. his pay was lowered by $5 or $6. he lost vacation time. he started under the bush administration. he had no strings attached. he gave from between $7 and $25 billion to start the program. host: we're running short on time. what was the question? caller: mine was just a comment to say that i think obama -- thank obama. host: a question off of twitter. how much government influence does gm see? do they still consult with the government about how their business is doing? guest: gm says the obama administration does not weigh in on business decisions. that is what we hear regularly. this week, gm put in a bid for

allied financials' to national operation to expand their ability to finance the coast around the world needed to finance vehicles -- to expand their ability to finance vehicles around the world. it is a unique deal because ally was one of the companies risk nearly $17 billion in bailout money in 2009. the proceeds of the sale of the international operations will go to the taxpayer. gm is in the running, so it creates an ironic twist in terms of government influence. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania, andrew. caller: what is the history and right of the u.s. government being able to buy private

industry and spending u.s. tax dollars to buy these industries and then losing billions of dollars in them. to mark the end up having us on the hook for this money long term -- they end up having us on the hook for this money long term. the companies and up losing money in the long run and end up having us owe money. the taxpayers lose the stimulus money over the long term. guest: i cannot say i am familiar with an historical precedent of bailouts. i think this particular package is unprecedented. i am happy to be corrected on the. i think in this case, the losses were expected.

the white house weighed this against the fact that 1 million plus jobs would be preserved. that is what they take as a success, the loss of those 1 million jobs in 2009 during the depths of the recession would have been extremely damaging to the u.s. economy. it would have hurt any progress that could have been made. i think the bankruptcies were seen as a necessary evil. i do not think the obama administration wanted to do this. i do not think anyone wanted to bail out detroit, but it had to happen for there to be economic stability at that juncture. since then, you have seen all three u.s. automakers improve. they have steady themselves financially. they're pulling profit. they've added 250,000 jobs since june. it is a question of jobs versus money.

the money is real. the loss is real. it is something to be concerned about. the white house and other pundits believe that when balanced against the jobs saved, it was worth it. host: what is the difference between what is going on at gm and chrysler? guest: the bailout packages were sharply different. gm got cash. chrysler was laden with debt, dollars and 7.6 billion in loans from the u.s. and canadian governments. that matters because chrysler was paying exorbitant interest rates on those loans. when they were coming out of bankruptcy, it undercut their ability to post profit. as a results, they did not have the balance sheet restructuring. chrysler had to make changes

faster. chrysler had to cut even deeper. every executive seemed to have three or four jobs. they worked seven days a week. that is not to say that gm executives do not work hard. but at chrysler, they had a gun to their head. gm with the cash did not necessarily have the incentive to change as rapidly. i do not doubt for a second that gm feels the pressure, especially now that the stock prices in the 20's, far short of the ipo price. host: christian is on the democrats' line from ohio. caller: i hear this $25 billion loss. this loss would only occur if the government or to cash in the stock early. we are reinvesting in america in one of the worst financial

crises we have had in the long time. this would be a good time to get the money back. when you consider the millions of jobs lost, millions of employees that a state and local tax to support schools and property taxes. people would have lost homes. you are talking huge losses. $25 billion is nothing compared to that. if they had to take $135 billion pension in the government, that would have been worse than $25 million. we are reinvesting in america. that $25 billion is nothing compared to the billions that would have been lost. guest: i think that is an important point. the caller makes an extremely important point. the u.s. government has not cashed in the 500 million gm shares. the ipo of ally financial is not imminent.

they're still working on cashing out of ally. at the moment, it is the radical. the value of the losses seem to contract and expand, depending on investor enthusiasm for gm shares. we are investing in the economy. investing in an industry is important as well. the automotive industry put up an estimate of how much the lack of a bailout would have cost the u.s. they came to a figure of around $27 billion. that is two years ago. i am not sure if the updated the figure. that is $27 billion and over 1 million jobs lost.

that is what we're weighing this again. a $25 billion theoretical loss against a real loss of $27 billion and a loss of over 1 million jobs. host: is there a definite amount of time we can hold on to the shares? do we have to let go of them at a certain point? guest: there does not seem to be a timeline. the obama administration initially wanted to be out by now. they wanted to be out by the next presidential election. that clearly is not going to happen. treasury is saying we will sell shares to maximize shareholder returns and as soon as practical. that time has not come yet. host: here is hampton, conn., joanne, independent line. caller: he gave this money to unions in the auto industry.

it will be laundered and given back to him as the nation's. that is who he helped. we are supporting this industry. the only reason they are successful is because of our money. he is going around saying gm is number one. it was number one for six months because of the tsunami when the japanese had to shut down the toyota plant. now that the plants are open, toyota is number one. he is misleading and lying to the american people saying he saved the auto industry. guest: i think detroit would agree the only reason gm and chrysler are still around is because of the american taxpayer. that is unequivocally true. everyone at gm and chrysler is very aware of that.

absolutely, the american taxpayer, the reason why gm and chrysler are still around is because of the american taxpayer. that cannot be disputed. if we're talking affect gm is the world's largest automaker, the caller is making a fair point as well. toyota was hit with the production facility. they could not make enough cars to meet demand last year. gm's position as the world's largest automaker is fortified and helped by the toyota market share losses last year. how it plays out this year will be interesting. the tally of the world's largest automaker is complicated. there is not a unified way to

calculate that. it tends to be debatable. host: liz smith says ford proved they did not need a bailout to succeed. guest: ford is an interesting case because they hit their crisis point before the other two. if you look at articles from the contract round from four years ago, it shows how they went from the weakest to the strongest of the detroit three rapidly. reason for did not need a bailout is because at the end of 2006, they were able to take over $23 billion in loans to execute a turnaround plan. ford, two years later, they went to washington and ask for a bailout. they were able to look at the figures and realize they did not need the money the way gm and chrysler did. ford was able to do this.

that is because they hit the crisis point earlier than the other two. important thing to remember is that ford does have federal money in the form of department of energy loans, over $5.6 billion that have enabled the company to develop fuel efficient vehicles. it did not take a bailout, but it does have a federal funds. i want to make sure that point is understood. host: was there anything else from the treasury department report released this week worth noting?

guest: i think we hit the highlights. it is gm's stock price, the uncertainty of the ally investment. all of that contributes to wider loss estimates. at the moment, it is a theoretical loss. it is constantly fluctuating. only when the treasury sells the 500 million shares will we know the extent of the loss. gm is aware of the fact its share price, it has a lot of work to do. dan ackerson has asked every quarterly earnings and earnings report, they are working on it.

they are working on things at opel and making moves with pensions. they are trying to show investors that are initiating a cultural change. host: is there a different tone in the auto industry in detroit than what we saw in 2009? guest: absolutely. in 2009, there was real concern and fear. in detroit, absolutely everyone -- it is night and day. there is a recognition there are a lot of challenges in terms of management and execution. there are a lot of changes that need to be made. there is frustration the changes are not being made

rapidly. i think there is a lot of optimism out what can be done in the future. host: deepa seetharaman is with reuters covering the auto industry and joins us from detroit. thank you so much. >> tomorrow, brenda sulick looks at this year's campaigns. geoffrey bell talks about why america needs social conservatism. karim sadjadpour looks at iran's role in syria and violence. live senate -- sunday 7:00 eastern. >> i was in a training program

after i got out of the army with the wall street journal. >> of this sunday, walter pincus talks about his various jobs as a journalist, his criticism of the defense budget's priorities. >> they built a $4 million facility for the bandit. which is about 40 people. -- for the band. if he spent $4 million on an elementary school, i bet someone raise questions. >> more with walter pincus sunday night at 8:00. >> president obama urged republican members of the house to approve funding for the state to help teachers who have lost their jobs.

>> hello, evebody. i spent some time travelling across i was talking about rebuilding the economy where if you work hard, you and your family can get a head. a long the way i stopped and cascade high school to think the teachers for doing a great job. there is nothing more important to our country pose the future than the education we give our kids. there is nobody more important than the person in the front of the classroom. teachers matter. sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies just to make a difference. they give everything for our kids. we should invest in them. this year several thousand your educators will be going back to school. since 2009 we have lost more than 300,000 education jobs in part because of budget cuts at the state and local level.

think about what that means for our country. at a time when the rest of the world is racing to out educate america, this cancels programs for preschoolers and kindergarteners and shortens the school week and the school year. that is the opposite of what we should be doing. states should be making education a priority in their budgets. congress should be willing to help out. this affects all of us. that is what part of the jobs bill i sent included support for states to rehire teachers who have lost their jobs. here we are one year later with tens of thousands more educators laid off and congress has not done anything about it. the economic plan almost every republican in congress voted for would make the situation worse. it would cut the education funding. your teachers in the classroom

and for college students with access to financial aid. it is wrong. that plan does not invest in the future, it undercuts the future. if we want america to lead, nothing is more important than giving everyone the best education possible. that is why we launched a national competition to improve the schools. for less than 1% of what the nation spends each year, we have encouraged almost every state to raise their standards. the first time that has happened in a generation. that is why we have given states more flexibility on no child left behind it. why we have performed the student loan program to put students before big banks and increased financial aid for millions of young people. higher education cannot be a luxury. every family should be able to afford. this is a country no matter what

you look like or where you come from, if you are willing to study and work hard you can go as far as your talents will take you. you can make it if you try. i am only the president because of the chance my education gave me. i want every child in america to have the same chance. that is what i am fighting for. i will keep fighting for it. thank you. have a great weekend. >> hello, i am congresswoman vicky hartzler. my husband and i raise cattle and grow far -- soybeans. we have three stores and about 50 employees. a run the country it is the state their time of year. our place -- our fair showcases the best of agriculture and recognizing a perseverance of

farmers and ranchers as they face the worst drought our country has faced in decades. i was relieved when the house passed a bipartisan measure helping farmers devastated by the drought. a lot was writing on this bill. the senate, a body left washington without even bringing it to a vote. the president has seen fit to politicize this issue. that is a true shame. drought conditions continue to worsen and the shaky state of the economy amplifies our anxiety. you probably heard the president say the private sector is doing fine and his plan worked. if only our true. take a look at the chilling report the associated press release confirming our fears that this is the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. unemployment has never been this high for so long after a recession.

even those who have jobs are seeing their paychecks shrank. rising prices on everyday things does not help matters. as hard as it is to believe, the president and his party think now is a good time to raise taxes on small businesses. perhaps they have not read the independent report from earnest and young showing this tax hike would destroy more than 700,000 jobs. perhaps the have not been listening to the manufacturers and small business owners canceling plans to hire and expand it. senate democrats have not acted to stop the tax hikes scheduled for january 1. the house has. while the president tells small business owners like me "you did not build that." republicans know better and are committed to getting government out of their way. the house has passed more than 30 jobs bills that eliminates

excess of red tape, and power small businesses, and approve the keystone pipeline. we have passed a budget that protect the economy for the long term by fixing the tax code and preserving medicare for today's seniors while strengthening it for future generations. the president on the other hand has no plan to save medicare. he took hundreds of billions of dollars from it to help pay for obamacare. senate democrats have not even offered a budget in more than three years. we expect our leaders to offer solutions to pressing challenges, especially when the going gets tough. these days the president does not want to talk about the bad economy, yet alone do anything about it. focusing on jobs and acting on better solutions remains republicans pledge to you. thank you for taking the time. may god bless the united states

of america. >> this year was the independence institute alcohol, tobacco and firearms party. here is a look at some of the event. >> what we see out of michael bloomberg and his crowd consistently and their attempts to exploit the recent murders of in colorado and wisconsin and really every day is undifferentiated hostility toward gun ownership and people who -- especially the people who own firearms for protection. we know this is chris -- hypocritical because when michael blumberg says people should not have guns for a protection, if you can get a security detail carrying machine

guns to accompany you every second, that is okay because, after all, he is not personally owning a gun for protection. maybe he feels there is a difference there. they put out these terrible malicious lies against people when they say the only reason a person would own a ar-15 rifle is because they want to be a mass murderer. what a horrible thing to say about the millions of americans who have made this the best selling rifle in the united states of america and what a malicious falsehoods to say about our police who frequently carry an ar-15 in their squad cars in the circumstances where they might need a rifle for backup. neither the americans regular civilians who use ar-15 for target shooting, for defense, for hunting game up to the size

of the year -- it is not powerful for something larger than that. they havehem not because they want to harm a lot of people, they have them for legitimate purposes and especially for protecting themselves and other people. >> watch the entire event tomorrow at 4:00 eastern on c- span. >> i started as a copy boy at the new york times. i was in a training program after a i got out of the army for the wall street journal. >> this sunday, washington post columnist walter pincus talks about his various jobs as a journalist and his criticism of the defense department's budget priorities. >> the bulk of $4 million facility for the band, which is about 40 people.

if he spent $4 million on an elementary school i bet somebody would raise questions. >> more with walter pincus and the night at 8:00. -- it sunday night at 8:00. >> the talk last week about the importance of an independent judiciary, specifically the impact of local influence on state and local courts. this is about one hour. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. it is my pleasure to welcome you all this morning. part of this might be hard to believe it. we will take a break for the next hour or so and talk about

the third branch of government. we're not shifting away from the economic issues that face all americans and communities across the country every day. whether you are an employee who has been injured on the job or a consumer with a credit card, or a mother whose child was injured by a defective product that she bought for her, or one of the millions of americans who has had their house foreclosed on, you have turned to state courts for protection. 95% of all litigation in the country happens in state courts. unfortunately in 39 states in the union holding some form of elections for state court judges, it might not be possible for americans to get a fair day in court. following the citizens united decision, judges are having to choose between siding with special interests or decide -- to side with the law.

we are releasing two reports that highlight campaign cash and the influence it is having over the justice system. how soaring costs of judicial elections, $230 million has been spent on campaigns in the last 10 years has led to state supreme court decisions. we have seen a trend where corporate campaign money has resulted in an increasingly conservative pro corporate and the consumer decisions in a very short time. . the company report highlights a referendum on the ballot in november and three states that could make the process by which the judges are chosen even more political than is already the case. ultimately, i think u.s. supreme court justice sandra day o'connor said it best. we all expect judges to be accountable to the law rather than special interests. but elected judges are compelled to solicit money for their

campaigns, whether or not they actually tilt the scales of justice, three of four americans believe campaign contributions affect corporate decisions. that's real and growing crisis made worse by the supreme court 's citizens united decision is the topic of today's discussion. we have three people who know well and personally the affects campaign money can have an actual governing and judging. today we will examine one state's attempt to undo that corporations are people. justice james nelson directly to my right is a justice on the montana supreme court. he was appointed in 1993. he worked in private practice before that. he served as a first lieutenant

in the united states army from 1966 until 1969 and graduated from the university of idaho and the george washington university law school. he wrote a widely noted dissent challenging the campaign finance law after citizens united, a decision the supreme court reversed. justice oliver diaz was appointed in 2000 and won election to keep his seat. they held cap damages were unconstitutional. the u.s. chamber of commerce mastermind a campaign to unseat the judges that sit in the way of tort reform. he was acquitted of all charges. the story go was fictionalized in john grisham's book "the

appeal." he graduated from the university of mississippi law school and currently works in private practice. leading the discussion today is tom perriello. in addition to being a former member of congress, he is a graduate of yale law school and has a wide range of experience both in the united states and abroad. he managed teams working on conflict resolution. he has taught courses on justice and security at the university of virginia law school. tom also served as a special prosecutor and act as spokesperson for the special court of said earlier nine to the diplomatic showdown that forced charles taylor from power. please welcome the enjoining all of them today.

>> i want to first start by thanking everyone from the team here at the center from american -- center for american progress. i really do encourage everybody to read them. they may not be as gripping as "the appeal," but they are very important. i want to think of for the great work and hope people will have a chance to read through those. i am honored to be on the stage today with two real heavyweights of the legal community and that the current debate over the state of our judiciary and the rule of law and the united states. i am really going to let them drive the process here today starting with justice nelson. if you could set the stage for us about where we are and what the stakes are going forward in the wake of not only citizens united, but a series of cases

and legal challenges that have come in the wake of the including one in which to offer a decent at the end of last week. what is the state of play right now, and what does that mean for judicial independence? >> i think in andrew's opening remarks, he mentions of the most americans forget. that is that the judiciary is a co equal part of the government with equal dignity and power as the other two branches. i think what is in play here is the control of the judiciary. politicians whether democrat or republican, it does not matter, politicians want to control the executive branch and the legislative branch. at least in my view, neither of those philosophies is entitled to control the judicial branch. that is not with the judiciary is about. it is about the impartiality,

fairness, making decisions based upon the rule of law and giving people their day in court and a fair hearing of a dispute. i think that is what is in play here. this whole dialogue is the control of the do -- judiciary. if people can throw enough money into judicial races and effectively represent -- or select judges who are more interested in promoting some part of the ideologue or some special interest philosophy, they are going to do that. money talks as we know from citizens united. speech is money. it does affect the question. >> you had the unique perspective of being part of the

political process and the judicial process and a judicial political process. talk a little bit about what it means -- what you are seeing in terms of the state of the judicial selection process and from your own experiences what it means to look more and more like the political campaigns. >> first of all, you mentioned earlier the appeal by john grisham. i am glad somebody was able to make money off of my political career. i am in a unique position having both been elected and appointed. some people say appointed judicial system is somehow superior to any elected process. the appointed process is extremely political as well. you have to be connected to the right people. the political process is in itself entirely different. we heard andrew mention the

remarks of sandra day o'connor. three-quarters of the american population feel that campaign contributions influence the decisions of the judiciary. that is a sad day of affairs when 75% of the people in the country believe that political contributions influence justice. what is even more telling is another statistic. that is a poll of judges themselves. a poll of state court judges. 50% of state judge -- state judges themselves believed it influences the outcome of judicial decisions. when you get half of the judiciary thinking that -- these are the people that are supposed to be completely unbiased and making decisions based upon the law and the facts. when half of the judges feel that campaign contributions actually influence the outcome of decisions, we have a problem. >> talk a little bit about who is bringing the money into these

races and to what extent has the money changed over the years of your career starting with you. who is spending the money, why are they spending it and to what extent has this changed in recent years? >> i think historically lawyers for the people who contributed to judicial elections. that is how it all started. lawyers had an interest in the system -- both defense and plaintiffs lawyers. we as supreme court justices like to think we are important or well known. people do not know who judges are. we are anonymous. there are few appellate geeks' out there in the country who know something about -- >> may be here tonight. >> many geeks may be in the audience. i am one of them. other than that they really do not know who the judges are. they do not know much about us. in mississippi in 1990 -- i am

from mississippi. the winning justice spent in average of $25,000 in 1990. by 2000, a 10-year. -it was up to $1 million. that amount of time in a 10- year period he saw exponential amounts of money. it came about through corporations and special interests that decided -- i think they thought they could see these elections, which turned out to be fairly easy picking. they could pump lots of money into it. karl rove had a really telling " at one point. he said that -- a couple of million dollars and unanswered tv ads does wonders. i do not think it was the wonders for the judges that were running that he was talking

about. he had his interest. people saw the opportunity and started putting money into judicial elections. it was fairly easy to influence at that point. >> i agree with the remarks that were just made. montana has historically been -- there are less people in montana them probably in half of washington, d.c. it has typically been a low- budget, low campaign contributions state. when i ran for montana, you can be appointed if there is a vacancy in the office but they have to run for reelection. i ran three times. the last one was very nasty and contested. at that time the largest campaign contribution that could be made for a justice on the supreme court was $250.

i raised $250,000 for my election campaign, most of which was spent on media. this year in montana we have a contested senate race, a contested gubernatorial race. we have one supreme court race, the other is not contested. the supreme court races are being under the radar, which is where they typically are. that is correct that typically it is attorneys that give to these campaigns. i will say this. and the montana race there was a primary. a knockout, all but two. one person was not elected. one person who was elected --

over half of the money that was spent in her campaign came from outside pacs. i do not know what the money will be in the general election. the rebates to be seen. increasingly i think montana is going to join the rest of states where campaign money and campaign contributions are going to start affecting these races. >> we see what happens with citizens united when an outside interest group comes a lot of money into a political campaign. this -- they tried to influence the outcome of the campaign. we have a large amount of money coming into a campaign, there is a difference between a race for president or united states senate or something like that in the judicial campaign. in a presidential campaign, we see it right now. is all happening all over the country.

they are mostly negative. they tried to give you some information to base a decision on one of the candidates. no matter how much money they are putting into the presidential election, we know president obama. these outside groups are not going to be able to define him. we know mitt romney. he has run for president before. he has been running for a while. he cannot be defined by these groups. in a judicial campaign judges are not known. the opportunity is to define a judge. when you can define that person, and they do not have enough money or funds to respond or they do that have enough -- and expenditure grew behind them, if they are defined by one group, then it is easy. that is the problem. it is not equivalent to a national election like for president and when you do the same thing in a judicial election. >> the other thing is, it is not

just citizens united. the supreme court ruled that while the judicial candidates could not promise how they would vote, they could at least announce their position on various issues. most states at that time had what they called prohibitions in their ethical rules that did not allow judges to do that. doubt in addition to outside groups defining who judges are, judges can essentially have -- go out and the find themselves. i am for this and i am for that. i am against this i am against that. you cannot promise how you will vote. the public is not stupid. neither are our judges. if i go out and announce to people "i am pro-choice, i am pro-life."

people are going to take it that is his position, that is how he will vote. >> he both raise issues about the contest carry with you noted the idea that it is in some ways worse in a judicial case because he did have a countervailing issue of a megaphone. a politician to go out and try to make news in what is called earned media. is more typical to raise money as a politician than a judge of this scale. the idea that typically an element of judging has been not to prejudge where in campaigns it is about voters wanted to know where somebody stands. the thing that struck many people, the decision between citizens united. where the supreme court essentially one might argue in a world they actually understood, judicial elections, they took a

fairly different position than they took in something they may not really understand as well, the perception of corruption in a political election. do we see a split jurisprudence between how the supreme court treats judicial elections and congressional or do we think it will go away and we are heading in a direction -- >> i do not think it will go away, but it is important to differentiate. citizens united is a first amendment issue. people can say what they want. they can spend money how the one. that was a case that said, if so much money is spent in a judicial campaign that it is going to affect the outcome of a decision for a litigant, that judge has to recuse himself. that is all that really accomplished. >> and it was very limited, too. >> can one of you give a

background. a publisher of expand a little bit about the case as well. -- i probably should have explained a little about the case as well. >> caperton involved a case where a person was running for the west virginia's supreme court. a person who had a case pending before the court wanted this particular person to be elected. so he dumped a tremendous amount of money -- millions of dollars into that person's campaign. the person 1. predictably the person voted in favor of the litigant. it was a split decision. it reversed the lower court decision against a limited to a supreme court decision. under those circumstances, the supreme court held there was too

much of an appearance of impropriety given the money dumped into the campaign. >> do you see this as something where there could be a different set of jurisprudence and elections or is this a question of bringing it into the process corruption charges versus the first amendment issue? >> i think citizens united is broader than the caper 10 decision. when you are dealing with first amendment issues, it will be applied to any election whether judicial, city council, all the way up through present. caperton dealt with recusal. when there is enough money that there is the appearance of impropriety or the appearance that the judge should recuse, that is when it would apply. the supreme court did not even mandate it in that instance.

they said they should send it back for a review and let the judge decide. i think the citizens united decision is much broader. >> what makes matters worse if you want to put it in that frame, that was written by kennedy. kennedy was just absolutely dismissive of the caperton decision in the citizens united case. i do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. >> i might add he is dismissive without any finding of fact -- you made the effort to go out and do. one of the things i am positive about this is some of the issues we are talking about here, the issue a pro consumers as corporate do not fit in what might be the current democrat

republican split and ideology. this is more of a populist to corporatist or pro citizen versus pro powerful kind of dynamic. the rocky mountain west has more of a libertarian field. to some people it has been a surprise to see montana, which is not seen as a left-wing state really leading the judicial push back on this. and your sense, what are the lines being drawn here and is it one that is about different ideologies on the court or is it purely a matter of following the money to understand the division's? >> on the supreme court? cox also trickling into the state elections. in other words, when you see this as the montana supreme court having put a fairly forceful direct push back to the supreme court on this, why do you see that coming from a state

like montana as opposed to something you might see as a more traditionally liberal state? >> that is complicated. he also probably getting out of my pay grade here. when i started practicing in montana, montana was a progressive states. in 1994 or 1993 -- whenever the gingrich revolution took place -- montana started going more and more in that direction. although montana is typically composed of blue-collar workers, farmers, ranchers and that sort of thing, that group of people has followed the trend nationally that decker people have been falling toward

more conservative spectrum. most of the people on the supreme court are not quite as old as i am, but close to it. we come from a different era. this election, at least from the seat i am vacating is second person in a new generation. you should be asking that question in 10 or 15 years from now. >> it is not an easy left right breakdown, i do not think. in the mississippi, judicial elections are not run by parties. we're not republican or democrat. you do not necessarily get the republican democrat breakdown in judicial races. it is a lot about the money.

the break down that we have seen in mississippi in addition to corporations, insurance companies that may be the same thing the and the doctors and medical providers on one side and lawyers and labor unions on another side. it is not an equivalency at all. i think all of the specifics show that for a lack of better term left side lawyer groups and union groups are out spent many times six-one. you have huge amounts of money coming in. >> i think another factor that is underplayed is the about to that the christian right has played in this whole thing, too. that i think has made a difference in my state.

in 2004 i guess it was we had a marriage amendment passed, 62% of people voted for that. i was just dumbfounded. that is not -- it does not reflect what i think most people actually believe in montana about that issue. >> one of the interesting things is when the outside groups come in -- i have noticed the ads they run do not normally support their positions. in the attack a judicial candidate they do so on grounds other than he is supporting plaintiffs are not voting pro- business enough. what they do is to use issues that will inflame the public. usually using criminal decisions from the judge's past career. i do not know if you saw the movie coffee. it was an expert say on

corporate influence. my wife tells a story about how these kids came into our campaign. they started running these massive amounts of ads talking about what a horrible person i was. they pad moneybags up on a judge's bench and said he is accepting tens of thousands of dollars from zero lawyers groups. and then he went on to allow a cocaine dealer to be set out of prison. that is eight justices job to review criminal cases. a judge cannot do it by themselves. we have to have nine judges in mississippi. the have nine votes. these ads were just really horrible. we did not want our kids to see this on television. we kept the television off as we were getting ready for school. one morning we forgot and we are getting ready for school.

my daughter olivia is in the other room and we hear her yelling "yes, we are rich. we have lots of money being given to us." the ads did not have the affect they wanted on my household, but they did on the public. >> certainly something that comes across strongly in the appeal, which i should mention since we are doing puerto rico for john grisham. it goes into detail talking about the fact the money is spent based on those looking for a return on investment say on a specific corporate liability case or a more generalized issue of liability and consumer protection laws. the ads end up being spent largely on culture or criminal issues. the group's spending the money do not care, they just want justice to side their way.

i guess part of the question back on that is where you went with it. does this also not affect the balance of the skills of corporate and consumer interests, but the politicization of the bench. when i was briefly a politician, you always think about the sec -- 32nd spots. -- 30-second spots. you hope for good policy even if it risks. for that to come into a criminal case, what do you think is the impact of this? is the money -- is the problem money and politics or just the elections themselves? >> it is a combination. when you have large amounts of money coming into a campaign, it will influence both the public

and the candidates running. you will tailor your campaigns to win. that is what a campaign is about. and one of the horrible results of the campaign against me -- they used these terrible ads talking about drug dealers and things. a fellow member of the mississippi supreme court actually saw the ads. after that. he refused to vote to overturn criminal cases at the mississippi supreme court. i thought there was a horrible thing to do. he lost his next election anyway. i think it may be shared his character regardless of the way he went. judges running for election to keep in mind what the next 32nd at will look like. unfortunately, if it does have a spillover effect. i knew what was coming when i voted. i voted calling for the abolition of the death penalty

and the mississippi which is not a popular stance in the south. i knew what was coming. i did it anyway. you have to have principled people that run these issues. >> if you get big money on these judicial elections, you are not going to get principled people that are willing to run for these offices and get crucified in some-the campaign. that is what it will amount to. but one of the things i was asking before, we recently had an issue in charlottesville or the president of the university of virginia -- there was an attempt by members of the board. what you saw that was interesting was it was not just -- it was not just a liberal versus conservative thing. you saw a lot of southern conservatives who did not like the idea of somebody trying to come in and use money to

determine the outcome or direction of academia. academic liberty by judicial independence is an area where both conservatives and liberals often feel like this is a place that should not be about who has the most money or influence. this should be about some sense of fairness or independence in this case. there are certain to case -- there are certain cases we treat differently in that way. do you see the conversation going forward primarily about the corporate personhood question. is it about this idea of corruption and influence and the process that should be above that? >> well, i do not know if it is going to be about corporate person had, it should not be. that has nothing to deal -- to do with the decision in citizens united.

it should be about corruption and the corrosive and anti distorted the facts that big money has. if you think that academia is sacrosanct now, it will not be in a few years. i used to think the judicial process was sacrosanct. i am certainly proven wrong on that. i use the phrase and my dissent and western traditions case about corporatism. as long as i think our national philosophy in the economy is dominated by the free-market concepts -- the market will solve all our problems and take care of all of us, i do not think anything is sacrosanct. the best way to promote that

philosophy is to control everything. the way you control everything is to control it by money. >> i will avoid the attempt to make this about the vice- presidential pick. you mentioned that this issue about -- one thing we talk about on the political side is could people not even bothering to run anymore. you mention the people that you know in the legal community, do you think there are some saying, why bother? you probably are taking an hourly cut to join the bench. it tended to be something you did out of a sense of duty. but now that it starts to look more like running for office, is that going to affect whether good people run or the kind of people that want to put themselves into harm's way? it is a bit of a leading

question carry >> there is no doubt about it. there are a lot of good lawyers out there who simply do not want to get involved in the political fray. in the past, we could recruit these wise old lawyers to cap their career with a judicial appointment and maybe have them run for reelection. it seemed to work for a while. i think people looking at it now, if you have some guy who has had a tremendous legal career, is telling reputation. why sully your reputation, potentially your family knowing that your background is going to beat goran -- gone through just like any other election. you will limit to the pool of candidates interested in seeking the these higher judicial positions.

fortunately, you do have a trial bench. even the trial judge's -- they are somewhat removed from a lot of the large funding that comes into some of the higher judicial positions. even your good trout judges do not want to leave their local trial -- trial judges do not want to leave their local bench. they see what is happening. they know that every decision they have made in the past will of the -- will be gone through. if they let a rapist go one time i entered the past because the prosecutor fought the wrong case, it is coming up. yes. you are going to limit the pool of candidates who are willing to subject themselves to that scrutiny.

. .

>> i think the way i would think about it is to remind everyone, it's the very early days on this kind of work, and the studies are very small, you know, not statistically significant claims to make here, but we're seeing promise. but we're seeing promise in not all patients, not all times, not all circumstances. the question is less about how to provide incentives and more, do you create a policy environment where it makes sense -- where you're able to do this when it makes sense and when you can find value in it and not be hampered by policies that says, you know, don't do this even if it's a good idea, because we've structured your payments or we've structured

the rules to prevent it. in some ways, that's our purpose of trying to share this work at this point, you know, this is coming along, there may be some real opportunities here , and you want to make sure that the policy environment enables those opportunities to be realized, but not necessarily create incentives to say you all need to be doing this now. >> i'm from the american academy of neurology. my question is -- i think she pretty much asked the same question i wanted to ask. i was just thinking, from a provider perspective with respect to the smartphone apps, like breathe easy that was mentioned, it wasn't clear to me when i was listening to the discussion exactly how this would be implemented or who would be the decision maker. would it come from the physician who would identify the patient and say i think you'd be great to this, or would it be the patient who

would see the app -- or would have access to the app and say i think this would be a great way for me to manage my care. it was a little confusing to me. who was the entry point? where does it begin? is it the physician who identifies the patient and then they go from there? the reason i ask that is because it was mentioned that perhaps in the emergency department, physicians there or clinicians there may identify patients who would be eligible, you know, to use the app. so if you could just provide some clarification on this exactly, what's the intent? who's supposed to use this? was it the physician that identifies the patients or was it the patient? i would appreciate that. >> i think at the end of the day there's going to be negotiation, and it's up a unilateral decision. but in a medical home world, it wouldn't necessarily just be the e.r. physician who was seeing this patient was in the e.r., i would know that as a primary care doc they've been

in the e.r. and to me, i don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to it, but i'm perhaps -- from being a physician, i'm thinking more centric here, and assuming we would be identifying these people. >> so it would not replace the physician? >> no, i don't think so. it would just become another tool that we have. >> ok. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of the home care technology association of america. i think someone -- i'll give credit maybe to janet as far as what happens outside the clinic. i think that one of the things i heard on the panel that came out today, one of the things that we're trying to do is align with a group of providers that provided incentives for electronic health records, along with acute care, those providers with not acute care

and other care providers. so we've identified this as a huge need to try to make sure we have alignment across a spectrum of care. i've been working in that regard under the s.n.i. framework. it's a community-led initiative to create a longitudal care plan. part of me care is informational, just to make sure you were looking at that model. the home health care, our use case was just about the framework, and we'll go through ballotting. that we plan on using and hoping to use across a platform of care providers. in other words, physicians, it would be a partnership with them, but other partners could use this as an electric means of establishing goals, interventions, and also all those being measurable backed up by clinical data that can be

collected either by remotely, by remote patient monitors or on site by clinicians. so i just wanted to, as part of my question to ask, it's more of overarching. i know that we've had a very specific look today at specific programs and interventions, but what new models of care coordination are going to be needed in order to better engage patients in their care, and have you thought how this was going to happen on sort of a holistic way? thank you. >> can now take a stab at that. bipartisan center released a report earlier this year looking at the attributes of high performance, reducing costs and improving quality and healthcare, and the patient activation engagement piece is huge and a common attribute across a number of organizations that we interviewed. i think -- and this relates -- there were two questions around payment.

i think looking, as steve mentioned, at specific actions and reimbursing them, it's very different than actually -- and we're very encouraged to see a delivery system and payment models that are being tested by cmmi, a number of states, a number of health plans across our country and providers that are actually providing incentives for better care, coordinated care, accountable care, and this is just a piece. so clinicians, doctors, working with those who provide financial support for these models working with patients that are heavily involved in governance in a number of these initiatives is the way forward. we applaud your leadership around home care, and this is really the wave of the future. >> my question is about aggregation.

it seems like we're talking about a patient entering -- old metric over a new medium, and the physician is the one who ago gre gates that data. you know, instead of perhaps a different way of doing things, like perhaps target, which has more data points than my healthcare provider, i'm guessing, and who can also figure out when people are pregnant without having to ask them. so, are we headed that way? and at the same time, would such systems which would necessity computerization of healthcare allow people to operate at the top of their license, as we say, and also, are there barriers to it where physicians will feel like, you know, their watson technician. watson is an i.b.m. computer which is made to do this sort of thing. >> that brings a whole interesting area, and there are companies in patients like me and cure together where people

enter a lot of information about themselves, their treatment, their experiences, and then can sort of see in the aggregated crowd how they're doing relatives to others and insight can be seen from that. there are great stories of patients finding that they were only on 10 milligrams of something because their doctor said that's all anyone should really take, and then they find out that 90% of people with similar conditions are actually getting 100 milligrams, so they can go back to their doctor and say what gives? >> i think there's a ton of opportunity there. i think, again, sort of who's doing what with those insights is always a good question. again, she can go to their doctor and say, i'm not saying i need 100 milligrams, but evidence suggests other people are on it, so let's have a conversation about it. the other thing i think this does is it really does open up the question of what professional skills are needed to do what tasks associated

with providing care in a coordinated, team-based fashion. i think the example of breathe easy, where they had nurses reviewing the data, the dashboards from the patients, and then triaging escalating to physicians was a good example of saying, let's put the right task with the right person with the right skills and divvy up the work that way. i don't know if you have thoughts on that. >> if i'm remembering correctly, steve, didn't every project end up with a model like that, where none of these projects did they decide the physician was going to be the first viewer of the information. >> yes, absolutely. there's always an element of team going on. >> you get the last question. >> taking it back to reimbursement and a nice lead-in with every model ended up with a different care team maybe taking a piece of this

before it got to that end care provider that might make a decision, but each one of those pieces of the puzzle comes with a salary, right, and a need for reimbursement. so, a couple of things that came up, that the physician brought up earlier around telephone visits is the chapter 10 of the broadband plan really spoke about e-visits. we're going on four years sitting on that plan, components of that plan. how do we, one, move policy forward that keeps up with the technology at hand so we're looking at e-visits, for one? we're looking to update the very antiquated reimbursement for at the lemedicine, which is probably five years behind on the books, which means 10 to 15 years behind in terms of what the technology can do today. so, you know, applaud the model and what's happening with innovation center, but how can we raise that discussion, both at c.m.s. to look at moving the

reimbursement structures forward? and also, how can we look at other industries and what has happened in the microfinance world? we talked earlier about co-pays, but if you look at, for instance, the music industry, one of the ways that apple turned that on its head was, you could buy a song for 99 cents. well, everybody said, jeez, i can sell an album for $20 or $15, why would i want 99 cents? the way they made it so easy for people to grab the music, and have we looked at other industries and the way microfinance is used and being used in other parts of the world, not in the u.s., and bring that to bear on healthcare, what if it meant that a provider just got very many, many small payments, maybe not out of the insurance industry, but directly from patients? i'd be willing to pay, right? but we don't have the financial structures in place at all in the u.s. or barely. so we have square that's moved in, and that's the beginnings.

but how can we look at, again, some of the other things that are happening in other industries that might help move us along? >> you've just thrown out several important challenges for all of us sort of looking to move, see the needle move on healthcare, both for patients and providers. you know, we didn't come to the table with any experts on reimbursement, but i think it's fascinating, and it just underscores how we need to be thinking about health information and healthcare and health differently than the way that we've historically thought of it, if we really hope to leverage technology better and bring patients more into the center of the conversation and make all of it work far better than it does today. rather than questions, i'll say good points and good thoughts to follow up on.

>> do you have time for another question? >> i'm afraid we don't. we actually have -- and a apologize to all of the folks who put questions on cards that we didn't get to. but we have run out of time. i want to come back and thank our friends at the bipartisan policy center, particularly janet marchibroda, our colleagues at the robert wood johnson foundation, particularly steven downs, you for sticking with an amro i am in-filled, mind-stretching discussion, at least for some of us. i want to take a second to note also and thank jackie who have labored for the alliance as interns this summer. i don't know if jackie is going to be around when we have our

briefing on friday, but when you join me in thanking the panel for a great discussion, you will also be thanking jackie. and see the reruns throughout the week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> later today, republican national committee platform co-chairman marcia blackburn joins us on "news makers." the tennessee republican will talk about drafting the platform in tampa, florida. join us at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. while german chancellor angela merkel was on a trip to canada, she met with the prime minister on parliament hill. they discussed the eurozone debt crisis and negotiations for a canada-european union free trade deal. the two leaders also addressed

reporters later in the day during a joint press conference. chancellor merkel last visited canada in 2010 when the country hosted the g-8 and g-20 summit.

>> good morning. >> madam chancellor, allow me to begin by welcoming you very warmly on half of all canadians . you welcomed me to germany on a number of occasions, and we are very happy to be able to welcome you here. you know you were at g-8 in huntsville and in toronto, but we are particularly pleased to welcome you here in the nation's capital on your first

bilateral visit to canada, the first such visit to ottawa by a german chancellor in a decade. germany is, of course, a close ally, partner, and friend of canada. and to the ties of national interest may be added to family, over three million canadians traced their roots to germany. >> i have to say, madam chancellor, over the years, i have frequently had the opportunity to appreciate the wisdom and leadership that you have brought to the g-8, to the g-20, and to other meetings among international leaders. i've always been impressed, not only by the quality of your contributions, but also the respect that you command from everyone around the table. our discussions last night and today with our officials have been frank and useful.

trade and investment between canada and germany is strong. our countries are firm advocates for the open market to create jobs growth and long-term prosperity for our citizens. however, there is room to expand our economic relationship directly and indirectly through wider trade with europe. that is why canada is determined to conclude a comprehensive economic and trade agreement between canada and the european union. madam chancellor, we very much want to thank you for the support, the ongoing support that you give to this historic agreement, an agreement that will make it possible for canada to access over 500 million consumers, consumers who make up the largest market in the world. we remain firmly committed to a

comprehensive economic trade agreement. your ongoing support has been vital to the great progress that has been made so far, and i know we will continue to work together to achieve this important milestone. something, by the way, which will serve as a very encouraging sign to both our economies and to the wider global economy. i know that for both our countries, the global economy remains the top priority. in the ongoing efforts to restore stability in europe. let me say this, we in canada appreciate your steadfast resolve in confronting these financial and economic challenges and in finding solutions, and in particular, we support your concern with not just finding any solution, but finding good and sustainable solutions to these problems. i have also appreciated our

exchange of views on international issues, particularly on the situation in syria. this is an area where germany, under your leadership, plays a vital and constructive role. angela, canada and germany are certain friends in a very uncertain world. your visit here is a testament to the strength of that relationship, a relationship that i personally and canadians generally greatly value. >> once again, i wish you a have i warm welcome. >> thank you very much. i gladly came here to canada on this, my first visit, after having obviously been able to enjoy canadian hospitality during summit meetings. this is an alliance, a very

close and friendly relationship between the republic of germany and canada. i said this before quite repeatedly, they are so good one has to be very careful in such a turbulent world not to lose sight of them, and to nurture them and look up to them, so i'm very grateful for your hospitality, for th very warm welcome, particularly for the hospitality, the very gracious one you extended yesterday night and where we had this very good talk in under four hours, and it showed again that lateral and bilateral issues, there's a high degree of agreement between us. but relations between canada and germany are much closer, not only on the political level, but also on the personal level. yesterday, for example, during the reception that the ambassador gave, i was able to meet a number of people who day by day do their bid to render

canadian-germany relations even closer, and i must say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the citizens on both sides of the atlantic who do that. canada is a country that holds great fascination for many, many germans. we know you are 30 times as big always the republic of germany, and who ever wishes to appreciate the sheer beauty of nature and vast spaces obviously will find this more here than in germany, although germany, too, is a beautiful country. i don't want to sort of actually say bad things about my country when i'm abroad. but in a rather insecure world, we discussed a number of issues of great interest to both of us, the issues loomed large on the agenda first, and the comprehensive economic trade agreement, we feel very much

committed to this. we want a speedy conclusion of this agreement. it will be an atreatment of the e.u. with canada that is on the broadest possible base. it's probably the broadest trade agreement that the e.u. has ever concluded from recognition of qualifications to regulatory cooperation to terrorists. there are a number of outstanding issues there, but once i go back to germany, i will see to it that these negotiations come to a speedy conclusion. because at the time where there is lack of growth in the world, we, canada and germany, are convinced that free trade is one of the best engines of growth that we can have. protectionism is one of the greatest dangers to growth as regards to growth globally. secondly, my visit to halifax this afternoon will underline that there is a very close

canadian area. almost all universities, almost all of the big research institutions, for example, in this particular respect, in marine research, and third, the business representative with whom we will have lunch presently come to a center from the area of natural resources, commodities, canada, as we all know, is one of the biggest suppliers of resources. in the next decade to come, we will cooperate very closely in this area, that we will embark on a joint path of extraction. we know canada to be a fair partner in trading, so we think we can make good investments, and we all learn, after all, that the supply with commodity says has become a strat strictly important issue for many, many governments in the world, and this is why we are so happy to have this close

cooperation with a country that is so rich in natural resources as canada is. we also talked about, obviously, economic issues such as coping with the euro crisis. we said we are after a sustainable, long-term solution. we think we ought to overcome a debt crisis here, a crisis of debt, a crisis of lack of competitiveness in a number of european countries, but what is also important is the question, when we created or when this currency was created, there was not really a reliable framework created at the same time. we feel committed to bringing this about. we know there has to be more responsibility shared politically. i also underline that, in many of these issues, we feel we're on the right track, although time is pressing, and we are very much aware of this. on the whole, thank you very

much, prime minister. it is a very interesting visit for me, a visit with a friend, a visit with friends, so thank you very much for your gracious hospitality. i think it's a very, very good contribution to the development of our bilateral relations, and it is a visit, when i come here, i immediately extend an invitation to the prime minister. you know there's an open door for you always. thank you very much. >> when i call your name, if you could please raise your hand and the microphone will come to you. >> good morning, mr. harper, your stated goal for 2012 is the deadline for the signature of the free trade agreement with the e.u.

but the fact that so far you have refused to assist germany and the e.u. for the rescue fund, can that be a barrier to the achievement of the free trade agreement for 2012? everybody has spoken of an elephant in the room, this refusal to assist the european union, so will it be a barrier, and have you taken the elephant out of the room, as it were, during your discussions with chancellor merkel? have you changed your position? >> the quick answer is no. those issues are unrelated.

we have confidence in our european partners. we feel they have the capacity and the will to take up their own chal ledges. the two issues are not connected. we both need to increase our trade, increase in trade and growth is essential to europe, as it is to canada. this is an excellent time, during a time of trade negotiations. it's essential that major economies come together. we are complying with the matters.

>> we are confidence that we have the means and the will to address their issues. both of our economies, our countries, need increased trade. it is essential for growth on both sides of the atlantic. this is an important agreement that we're negotiating. we have the goal of an ambitious agreement that will not only set up high standard for agreements between major economies going forward, but will also provide a sign, a signal to the demea major countries are able to move forward on the trade agenda. this is both for both of us. we set an ambitious time table to achieve that. negotiations are going well, and i'm confident that we will successfully conclude it. >> it would be very rock if one were to link the question of the comprehensive trade the comprehensive trade agreement