rawlings, the president of the american association of universities. >> thank you very much. thank you to fix the debt and to secretary panetta for this occasion, which i think is particularly important given the late hour we find with our congress. i want to be very -- very brief, which for an academic is always a challenge, but i will succeed in that. we have the best research universities in the world by a wide margin. we have the best innovation system in the world. those are now jeopardized. those universities and that innovation system are jeopardized by the continuing problems here in washington. this is not today's problem. it is not this week's problem. it is not the sequesters problem.

it is the budget problem overall. as was just said, members of congress do not vote against research. they just let cuts in research happen because of what is now in place, a budget that is constantly taking money away from research and innovation and putting it in the hands of old people, like me, who frankly should not be getting the percentage of revenue that is now coming to our generation. the reason we have the best research universities in the world is that, for some 70 years now, the federal government has invested heavily in research, competitively awarded research grants, which go to faculty members at the university of michigan, the university of virginia, harvard, stanford, and all the other great universities in this country that carry out research. what is the result of that research? a great innovation system. economists now acknowledge that 60% or more of u.s. economic growth over the past few decades is based on innovation. a huge percentage of that innovation is done in research labs at our universities. business, for the most part, has

stopped doing fundamental research. it has to be focused on the bottom line. it no longer invests as in the days of the bell lab. fundamental research is instead carried out in our nation's universities. china has noticed that and is now investing heavily in creating great research universities. we are disinvesting at the same time. so we are rapidly creating an innovation deficit. the innovation deficit, to me, long term is just as important as the budget deficit. what it says is over the long term, we are going to lose our advantage in innovation, and someone else is going to get it. that will then determine economic success in the future. we just won a bunch of nobel prizes this week and last. most of those prizes, as has been the case for some time now, are awarded to american

researchers and, frankly, to researchers born in other countries who now work where? at our universities. how much longer is that going to go on if we continue the innovation deficit and disinvesting in research when other countries have seen that as their long-term goal? we need to fix this problem. we need to fix it quickly. stop the crisis management and get onto thinking about the long-term investment, the only thing that will lead to long- term success for this country. thank you. for an academic, that is brief. [laughter] >> thank you, hunter. our last speaker, before we take your press questions, is mary woolley, who is the president and ceo of research!america. >> thank you. thank you, maya and fix the debt colleagues and everyone who has spoken already. research!america is an alliance of patient groups, academic institutions, business and industry, and scientific and clinical societies, well over

100 million americans represented. we all believe that research for health and the entire research and innovation ecosystem should return to being a number one american priority. sequestration and this shutdown have truly wreaked havoc on science overall, and that includes medical research. research projects has been canceled or stalled out indefinitely. researchers have been furloughed or laid off. young scientists are not receiving grants for innovative studies and are rethinking their career options. suppliers and other businesses that rely on discovery from basic research are downsizing. the cdc is blindsided by foodborne illnesses, outbreaks

that they are not staffed at this point to control. the department of defense is hampered in its conduct of medical research to benefit our wounded warriors and protect our men and women overseas. that list goes on. that is today's list. i really shudder to think about the long-term risk. the risk of de-prioritizing research and innovation. as hunter mentioned, other nations are not sitting idly by. they are actively exploiting our failure to prioritize research and innovation, and in addition to china, i'm talking about singapore, india, sweden, germany, and the u.k., to name a few. national public opinion polls commissioned by research america show that more than half of americans do not believe the u.s. will be world leader in science and technology by the year 2020. that is just over six years from

now. unfortunately, americans might be right. but they don't like it. for instance, an overwhelming majority, 90%, say it is important that united states maintains its world leadership in medical research and science overall, but our elected officials listening -- are our elected officials listening? i would argue that in this recent period of time, they have not. yes, we must reduce the deficit. we must fix the budget. but cutting funding for medical and health research and other domestic discretionary priorities is counterproductive to solving the problems we talk about all the time and wring our hands about, like controlling health care costs. diseases and disabilities are not going to cure themselves or be prevented overnight.

it is research that is a deficit reduction strategy. public-health readiness is a deficit-reduction strategy. why are we squandering those solutions? i know, you know, the president knows, and congress knows that there is a way to fix the budget. it involves tax and entitlement reform. we need smart tax and entitlement reform that doesn't undermine public or private sector medical innovation. to give you just one example, cuts to prescription drug reimbursement would undermine innovation. prescription drugs prevent hospitalizations, alleviate disability, and represent only a small fraction of health care spending. developing new medications is a high-risk proposition, and it takes both public and private sectors working hard at it. if reimbursement is cut, it

undermines the flow of capital necessary to the development of those solutions that we are all waiting for. for sure, sequestration has to go. we look to that conference committee, the budget conference committee, to address sequestration and to eliminate it. we and the members of our alliance will be speaking to members of that committee. starving the national institutes of health, the national science foundation, and other catalyst of american innovation and medical progress simply contravenes common sense and our nation's prospects for economic stability. medical progress should be an immutable american priority. in our polls commissioned by research america, a majority of americans say they would pay more in taxes if they knew that would go towards medical research. that is how important it is to americans. stalling that research now through sequestration or the

kind of reform that, again, undermines something we have to long taken for granted, while other nations are ramping it up, would drive our nation down at the very moment we have everything it takes to soar. the interest group that policymakers are not listening to, i would argue, is the american public. the words that policymakers are ignoring at our peril is our nation's future. thank you. >> yes, we do have time for questions. i just want to make one point. i think the unifying theme that you hear here from this group is people want our leaders to govern. we want them to lead. it is time for them to stop lurching from one crisis to another and focus on some of the longer-term issues. i think i will quote erskine bowles, who regularly says,

"we've made all of the easy choices. we've made all of the stupid choices. now it is time for this country to start making some of the real choices." i would be glad to turn questions over to the secretary and any of our speakers. >> mr. panetta, you talked often about sequestration. today's deal actually cements the cuts in sequestration. for the foreseeable future. does that mean it is a bad deal? do you think the senate and administration -- [indiscernible] >> the fundamental challenge that faced them was to do whatever was necessary to end the shutdown of the government and to extend the debt limit. this was a double whammy. 17 years ago, we were just dealing with a cr. in this situation, we had both the debt limit coming due as well as the funding for the government. so, the first thing that had to be done was to do whatever was

necessary to try to end the shutdown and extend the debt limit. i understand that, you know, a fight could have been done on sequester. it could have been done on a number of issues. having been in that institution and understanding the kind of politics you have to engage in in order to get things done, i think they made a choice. now, understand that my hope is that once you get into a budget conference, and once you are dealing with the bigger issues on entitlements, discretionary, as well as tax reform, that the decisions you make will not only help in terms of debt reduction and putting this country on the right path towards ending the deficit, but also will end sequester. >> mitch mcconnell said today on the floor that his main income accomplishment in these negotiations was securing the cuts under sequester and the budget control act.

>> you are going to hear, i'm sure over the next few days, everybody taking credit for what they won and lost. i have to tell you something -- as has been said and needs to be repeated, there are no winners and losers in this process. the american people have lost. now they need to roll up their sleeves and do what is right for this country. >> my question is this for the congressman or secretary -- whatever comes out of the budget conference, obviously there are going to be fairly major changes in government, priorities and programs. one group that seems to have gotten attacked, had to sacrifice, is the federal employees themselves. in simpson-bowles, there were talks about further cuts in terms of pension changes. i guess what i'm wondering is, do you think at this point some kind of continued reductions or continued changes in federal worker benefits are going to be necessary as part of an agreement, or do you think that,

given what has happened, maybe that could be put on a back burner? >> i would say it is a fair question, but it is way too early. i think what we are saying today is that everything needs to be on the table for consideration, the big items that are often left off the table need to be on the table for this discussion. as so many have said today, this is a process. it's not going to completely resolve itself through this committee process. a budget conference can come out with the budget conference report, which may, in part, put in a process for further reforms, changes, reductions, increases, getting sequestration off autopilot and back onto what we call in the house of representatives and the senate regular order. these are things that i think are important. your point, not only for government workers today -- we all know many of them, they are friends and family -- but i also

think about -- we are going to lose a generation of public servants. we maybe have lost generation of public servants who have watched this process over the last 2, 3, 4 years and have just said forget it. why would i choose public service as a vocation? when it should be an admirable calling. whether it is in political office or government service, there are so many good people who do not deserve to be used as pawns in this process. yes, changes need to be made. those changes may affect many workers. but it shouldn't just be about them. everything should be on the table. >> i guess this would be for mr. secretary panetta and sherman nussle. is there any reason to expect this budget conference to be any more successful than the supercommittee was? [laughter] has anything changed? you still have the major

sticking points that prevented them from doing anything. >> this is not going to be easy. nobody ought to assume that this is going to be easy. the hard work begins now. the kind of game playing that went on over these last few weeks with the shutdown of the debt limit and all of the threats and counter threats that went on, that's kind of politics of this town. the hard work is to sit down and walk through the entitlements and determine what reforms need to be made, what savings can be achieved, look at discretionary spending, lay out a path for that, and look for tax reform. somebody was with me at the time we sat down at andrews air force base and went through that process and walked through all of the entitlements and walked through discretionary spending and then walked through the whole tax arena. we finally came to a bipartisan agreement. but that was tough.

it was not easy. it took courage. there are risks involved. risks on all parts. but, dammit, that is what governing is all about. that is why we elect people. we don't elect people to simply survive in office. we elect people to make the tough choices of governing this country. hopefully, having been through this experience of the shutdown and the implications of not increasing the debt limit, we will be -- it will be a sufficient enough incentive for them to now turn to governing. >> mr. secretary, senator mcconnell was trying behind the scenes to get a provision in the deal that emerged in the senate that would give federal agencies more flexability the in dealing the sequestration cuts.

as no one needs to tell you, the arbitrary nature of the cuts for agencies. how important with that provision has been, and how difficult is that for an agency to have to deal with that, and arbitrary, across-the-board cut? >> it was a crazy formula. they designed it to be crazy, to basically do a meat ax cut across the board that would be so bad it would force them to do the right thing. that was the whole logic, if you call it logic, of why they developed sequestration. they obviously didn't have the courage to do with sequestration. sequestration went into effect. it has created havoc across the board, particularly at the department that i headed. i would rather, instead of playing with ideas as to how you create flexibility so you can move money around within the bounds of sequestration, i would

rather than deal with the bigger issues in the budget and be able to de-trigger sequestration. that would be the more responsible approach. >> [inaudible] >> right now, they are sinking in quicksand. they will take whatever review throw to them. >> mr. secretary, i was wondering if you would entertain answering a question on an unrelated topic, a serious topic of benghazi. >> [indiscernible] >> this is for mr. nussle, but anyone can chime in. what sort of institutional congressional reforms do you propose? >> i would be interested in leon's answer to this as well. we have both been through the ringer when it comes to considering budget process reform. i think it is a little bit of a panacea. i am the last person i believe who bought budget process reform

to the floor and had a chance of getting something passed. my reason for saying it that way is that there are some changes that could be made. the problem over the last 7, 8, 10 years is that it hasn't been used. my advice to the committee in both the house and senate when they held hearings about this was, why don't you try it? you might find it actually works if you respected it. if you adhered to the timetables. if you actually work together in a bipartisan way and in a bicameral way. what this process has an opportunity to do is put that back on track. i am not sure it will, but before somebody blames the process, realize that this is a process created by human beings. if those human beings don't open their ears and start listening to one another and getting to know one another and realizing

that -- just as an example, if i'm not mistaken, the president had in his budget over $500 billion worth of entitlement reforms. i would bet there are many republicans who either don't know that or are surprised by that. i would take that as a good starting point as a republican to say let's start there. let's bring hours to the table. let's see where we can work out both our differences as well as our commonalities. it starts by listening and recognizing that we are not that far apart on many of these issues if we bothered opening our ears and stop blaming the process and really looked into our own souls and hearts about what needs to be done. >> mr. secretary, just getting back to leadership and how this next round will be any different, i am wondering if you can describe what the white

house can do to encourage the next few months to go differently. you talked about this earlier. >> there are some elements, some basic elements that are important to make these kind of budget conferences work. first and foremost, is restoring some trust. these people don't trust each other. for a lot of reasons. some are justified, some not justified. the problem is, if you get into a room, you have to trust the people you're in the room with that they are going to tell you what they think, that they are going to be honest and that you're going to tell them what you think and be honest. that you're not going to suddenly walk out and do a bunch of soundbites with the press. that is the kind of atmosphere you need to have. one of trust. secondly, you have to put everything on the table. you can't say we are going to not do this.

you need to put everything on the table. it doesn't mean you're going to do everything, but you need to put everything on the table. go through it and talk about each of these programs. thirdly, when they work their way through it, they shouldn't agree on anything until they agree on everything. even though they make some tentative decisions, wait until the end of the road when you put everything together to basically package the deal. lastly, on the budget question, once you put those pieces together, you decide how do you enforce it effectively. frankly, there are some steps. we did it at andrews air force base. it was the heart and soul of the bush budget we passed but it was also the clinton budget when that passed. some of the things done with regards to limits and enforcement of limits in terms of spending, etc., those were all very effective tools and they ought to be built in this process. if this is going to work, then

the members up there that have been beating each other up and engaging in a soundbite war are going to have to put that aside. decide that you're going to go into a room and really try to be honest and truthful with one another. that is going to be a big step. i can't say it is going to happen, but everybody from the president to the leadership, democrats and republicans who are involved in the conference, they're going to have to restore trust to get something done. >> thank you, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will hear from michael kranish and matt viser

both from the "boston globe." olert with which ratings will talk about the brinkmanship that can have an effect on the ratings. and then robin wright about the iranian nuclear program. every day at the clock a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> over the years when you look back at the books that had an impact on a president, what did you find? really an impact on us as people. writingpiration for this book, i was curious to see whether books had an impact, and one of the famous stories as michael arrington wrote a book america."her kennedy is supposed to have read

the book and led to be were on poverty. it is not quite that simple. what he read was a book review in the "new yorker," and that inspired walter heller to go look into policies that could be used to alleviate poverty, and kennedy tragically died in november of 1963, but johnson then heard about this program and said that is my kind of program. >> 200 years a popular culture in the white house with tevi troy sunday night at 8:00 on c- span "q&a." senate votede the to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling, republican senator ted cruz spoke on the senate floor about why he objected to the bill. a few weeks before that before the government shutdown, senator spoken on the floor for more than 20 hours about defunding the health care law,

which became a major sticking point in keeping the government funded. here is senator cruz's remarks. >> mr. president, i rise today in opposition to the deal that the senate is getting ready to vote on. this is a terrible deal. this deal in bodies everything everything about the washington establishment that frustrates the american people. this deal kicks the can down the road. it allows yet more debt, more and its, more spending, does absolutely nothing to provide relief for the millions of americans who are hurting because of obamacare. to all the young people right now coming out of school who cannot find a job because of obamacare, this deal does nothing for them. moms who the single are struggling and being forced

into part-time work, trying to feed their kids on 29 hours a obamacare, this deal does nothing for them. to all of the hard-working families who are right now massive premium increases from their health insurance companies and trying to figure out how they're going to make ends meet with health insurance going up $100, to hunt 100%, 200%, 300% cured because of obamacare, this deal does nothing for them. to all of the seniors, to all the people with disabilities who are right now getting in the mail notifications that they are losing their health insurance because of obamacare -- this deal does nothing for them. mr. president, this fight was always about the american people who are hurting because of obamacare. unfortunately today the united states senate is saying you don't have a voice in washington.

you don't have a voice in washington. this is a terrible deal. i urge my colleagues here to oppose it. now, none of us should be surprised that when the senate votes, this deal is going to pass. it is going to pass by a big margin. nervous should be surprised, but mr. president, the outcome could have been different. you, mr. president, to imagine a different world. saw in the last two months millions of americans rights up, sign a national petition, light up the phones of the capital, and speak up against the enormous harm obamacare is visiting upon them. we saw the house of representatives stand with courage and listen to the american people. mr. president, i ask you to imagine a world in which senate

republicans united to support house republicans. piece being one different from what we saw. imagine after the house republicans stood together with the american people of all 46 senate republicans stood together and said we are united against the train wreck that is obamacare, we are united with the american people. that if president obama is going to give an exemption for big business, for members of congress, that the american people as are that very same intervention. i want you to imagine, mr. president, if senate republicans have stood together and simply andorted house republicans the american people. mr. president, i want you to have happenedould if all 46 senate republicans had united and got together and said the house of representatives has passed a bill funding the va.

mr.hould fund the va, president. the majority leader of the senate even to vote to fund the va. i want you to imagine all 46 republicans, if we simply stood together and support the house republicans in saying the house of representatives have voted to reopen our national parks, to reopen our war memorials, and the majority leader of the senate or fuses to allow the senate even to vote -- mr. president, i want you to imagine simply that senate republicans had stood together and said we support the house republicans in standing with the american people. if that had happened this result, i believe, would have been very different. it is heartbreaking to the american people that senate republicans, divided as they did

-- that senate republicans divided as they did and directed their criticisms am a directed their attention, directed their canton fire at house republicans and the standing with the american people. at the same time, mr. president, to the millions of americans who rose up in the last couple of months, i want to give a word of encouragement. a word of encouragement about the path forward. a couple of months ago, the washington establishment scoffed at the notion that the american people might rise up. that was viewed as silly and could not happen. a few months ago the washington establishment scott at the notion that the house of representatives would stand strong, saying we should fund every bit of the federal government. but we should not fund obamacare.

and yet what we have seen is extort america millions of americans saying obamacare does not work. the unions are jumping ship. democratic members of the senate and house went to the president and said we want to be exempted from obamacare. this law isn't working. it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is to see the american people rise up in such incredible numbers and see the house of representatives engage in what i considered to be a profile encourage, standing with the american people. going to stop obamacare, the way we are going to stop the suffering, the harms that are being visited on millions of americans, is the we have seen, the american people rising up. the answers are not going to come from washington.

washington is broken. the answers are going to come from the american people. mr. president, i am encouraged by the millions of americans who want to giet back to a free- market principle and stop this train wreck of a lot that is the biggest job killer in this country that is hurting people all across the country. mr. president, it is sad that today, the united states senate is telling -- today the united states senate is telling people aress this country -- who struggling and trying to provide for their kids and getting notifications in the mail -- your health care has been dropped. maybe you have an elderly parent and that health care policy is providing for your family. facingou have children debilitating diseases and yet you are getting a notification

that your health insurance has been dropped because of obamacare. mr. president, it is sad that the u.s. senate says we will do nothing to answer your plight. we created your plight but we will do nothing. have the that when you president of the teamsters saying that obama care is destroying the health care of millions of working men and women in this country and the them,ies that depend on the washington establishment has exempted itself to the problems and suffering of working america. at a sad. at the same time i am optimistic, i am inspired by the millions of americans who have risen up. if the american people continue to rise up i am confident that senate willu.s.

follow the lead of the house of representatives and listen to the american people. that is our job, that is our responsibility. this is a terrible deal today. but it is a terrible deal for the american people. at the same time, the path forward as the american people continue to rise up, we are going to turn this around. we are going to restore jobs, restore economic growth, restore the ability of people who are struggling to climb the economic ladder, to achieve the american dream. we are going to stop the number one job killer in this country, that is obamacare. mr. president, i rise in opposition to this deal that does not serve the best interest of men and women, each of us -- the best interest of men and women that each of us were present. i yield the floor. >> the senate went on to pass that legislation 81-18. the house passed the bill by a vote of 285 to 144 pin after

signing the measure into law president obama spoke to reporters about the government shutdown coming to an end and how he will -- how he hopes to move forward. his remark for about 20 minutes. -- his remarks are about 20 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. please have a seat. last night i signed legislation to reopen our government and pay america's bills. because democrats and responsible republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over. the first default in more than 200 years will not happen. these twin threats to our economy have now been lifted, and i want to thank those democrats and republicans for getting together and ultimately getting this job done. now, there's been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown, but let's be clear. there are no winners here.

these last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy. we don't know yet the full scope of the damage, but every analyst out there believes it's slowed our growth. we know that families have gone without paychecks or services they depend on. we know that potential homebuyers have gotten fewer mortgages and small business loans have been put on hold. we know that consumers have cut back on spending and that half of all c.e.o.'s say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months. we know that just the threat of default of america not paying all the bills that we owe on time increased our borrowing costs which adds to our deficit, and of course we know that the american people's frustration with what goes on in this town has never been higher.

that's not a surprise, that the american people are completely fed up with washington. at a moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more momentum, we got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back. and for what? there was no economic rationale for all of this. over the past four years, our economy's been growing, our businesses have been creating jobs and our deficits have been cut in half. we hear some members say they were doing it to save the american economy, but nothing has done more to undermine this

economy in the past three years than the kind of tactics that create these manufactured crises. and you don't have to take my word for it. the agency that put america's credit rating on watch the other day explicitly cited all of this, saying that our economy remains more dynamic and resilient than other advanced economies and that the only thing putting us at risk is -- and i'm quoting here -- repeated brinksmanship. that's what the credit rating agency said. that wasn't a political statement. that was an analysis of what's hurting our economy, by people whose job it is to analyze these things. that has -- that also has to be the view of the diplomats who have been hearing this internationally. some those who pushed for shutdown claimed their actions were needed to get america back on the right track, to make sure

we're strong. but probably nothing has done more damage to america's credibility in the world, our standing with other countries than the spectacle that we've seen these past several weeks. it's encouraged our enemies. it's emboldened our competitors and it's depressed our friends who look to us for steady leadership. now, the good news is we'll bounce back from this. we always do. america is the bedrock of the global economy for a good reason. we are the indispensible nation that the rest of the world looks to as the most safest and reliable place to invest. something that's made it easier for generations of americans to invest in their own futures. we have earned that

responsibility over more than two centuries because of the dynamism of our economy and our entrepreneurs, the productivity of our workers, but also because we keep our word and we meet our obligations. that's what full faith and credit means. you can count on us. and today i want our people and our businesses and the rest of the world to know that the full faith and credit of the united states remains unquestioned. but all my friends in congress understand that how business is done in this town has to change.

because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the american people and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust. our system of self-government doesn't function without it. and now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict and focus on what the majority of americans sent us here to do and that's grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle

class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul. that's why we're here. that should be our focus. now, that won't be easy. we all know that we have divided government right now. there's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how a lot of members of congress see the day- to-day work that's supposed to be done here. and let's face it, the american people don't see every issue the same way. that doesn't mean we can't make progress. and when we disagree we don't have to suggest that the other side doesn't love this country or believe in free enterprise or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. if we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on and get some stuff done. let me be specific about three places where i believe we can make progress right now.

first, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget. the budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further. at the beginning of this year, that's what both democrats and republicans committed to doing. the senate passed a budget. the house passed a budget. they're supposed to come together and negotiate. and had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out, how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provide certainty to the investors and our economy and we'd be growing faster right now. now, the good news is the legislation i signed yesterday now requires congress to do exactly that. what it could have been doing all along. and we shouldn't approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise, just cutting for the sake of cutting.

the issue is not growth versus fiscal responsibility. we need both. we need a budget that deals with the issues that most americans are focused on, creating more good jobs that pay better wages. and remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. it's going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. the challenge we have right now are not short-term deficits. it's the long-term obligations that we have around things like medicare and social security. we want to make sure those are there for future generations. so the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don't need, close the corporate tax loopholes that don't create jobs and freeze up resources for the things that do help us grow, like education and infrastructure and research and these things historically have not been partisan.

and this shouldn't be as difficult as it's been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago. our deficits are half what they were a few years ago. the debt problems we have now are long term, and we can address them without shortchanging our kids or shortchanging our grandkids or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work. so that's number one. number two, we should finish fixing the job of our -- let me say that again. number two, we should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system. there's already a broad coalition across america that's behind this effort of comprehensive immigration

reform. from business leaders to faith leaders to law enforcement. in fact, the senate has already passed a bill with strong bipartisan support that would make the biggest commitment to border security in our history, would modernize our legal immigration system, make sure everyone plays by the same rules, make sure that folks who came here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, meet their responsibilities. that bill's already passed the senate. and economists estimate if that bill becomes law, our economy would be 5% larger two decades from now. that's $1.4 trillion in new economic growth. the majority of americans think this is the right thing to do. and it's sitting there waiting for the house to pass it. now, if the house has ideas on how to improve the senate bill,

let's hear them. let's start the negotiations. but let's not leave this problem to keep festering for another year or two years or three years. this can and should get done by the end of this year. number three, we should pass a farm bill, one that american farmers and ranchers can depend on, one that protects vulnerable children and adults in time of need, one that gives rural communities the opportunities to grow. again, the senate has passed a solid bipartisan bill. it's got support from democrats and republicans. it's sitting in the house waiting for passage. if house republicans have ideas that they think would improve the farm bill, let's see them.

let's negotiate. what are we waiting for? let's get this done. so passing a budget, immigration reform, farm bill, those are three specific things that would make a huge difference in our economy right now and we could get them done by the end of the year. if our focus is on what's good for the american people. and that's just the big stuff. there are all kinds of other things we could be doing that don't get as much attention. i understand, we will not suddenly agree on everything now that the cloud of crisis has passed. democrats and republicans are far apart on a lot of issues, and i recognize there are folks on the other side who think that my policies are misguided.

that's putting it mildly. that's ok. that's democracy. that's how it works. we can debate those differences vigorously, passionately, in good faith through the normal democratic process. and sometimes we'll be just too far apart to forge an agreement, but that should not hold back our efforts in areas where we do agree. we shouldn't fail to act on areas that we do agree or could agree just because we don't think it's good politics. just because the extremes in our party don't like the word compromise. i will look for willing partners wherever i can to get important work done. and there's no good reason why

we can't govern responsibly. despite our differences. without lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. in fact, one of the things that i hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important, it matters. i think the american people during this shutdown had a chance to get some idea of all the things, large and small, that government does that make a difference in people's lives. we hear all the time about how government is the problem. well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in carrying for our seniors

and our veterans. educating our kids. making sure our workers are trained for the jobs in a are being created. arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. it plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. it helps folks rebuild after a storm. it conserves our natural resources, it finances startups. it helps sell our products overseas. it provides security to our diplomats abroad. so let's work together to make government work better. instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse. that's not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self- government.

you don't like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position. go out there and win an election. push to change it but don't break it. don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. that's not being faithful to what this country's about. and that brings me to one last point. i've got a simple message for all the dedicated and patriotic federal workers who worked without pay or been forced off the job without pay, including most of my own staff. thank you.

thanks for your service. welcome back. what you do is important. it matters. you defend our country overseas. you deliver benefits to our troops who've earned them when they come home. you guard our borders. you protect our civil rights. you help businesses grow and gain foot holds in overseas markets. you protect the air we breathe and the water our children drink and you push the boundaries of science and space and you guide hundreds of thousands of people each day through the glories of this country. thank you. what you do is important. don't let anybody else tell you different. especially the young people who come to this city to serve. believe that it matters. well, you know what, it does.

and those of us who have the privilege to serve this country have an obligation to do our job as best we can. and we come from different parties, but we are americans first. that's why disagreement cannot mean dysfunction. it can't degenerate into hatred. the american people's hopes and dreams are what matters, not ours. our obligations are to them. our regard for them compels us all, democrats and republicans, to cooperate and compromise and act in the best interests of our nation. one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thanks very much. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, readings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now you can watch us in hd. >> yesterday, former house speaker tom foley died. he was a democratic congressman elected to the state's sixth district -- fifth district. he served 36 years in the u.s. house, becoming the last speaker of the house before losing reelection in 1994. he said goodbye to his colleagues on the house floor

and handed the speaker gavel over to republican minority leader michael pitt here is a look back from the c-span video archives. .- bob michael here is a look back from the c- span video archives. [applause] >> the chair would like to ask my distinguished republican colleague if he would take the chair. >> i am happy to yield. >> with the gentleman please take the chair. -- would've the gentleman please take the chair? -- would the gentleman please take the chair? [applause]

house will be in order. [laughter] moving along. the chair yields to the distinguished speaker of the house for whatever comments and however long the. -- however long a. bank. -- however long a period. >> you have to put it on the resolution. [laughter] >> would you prefer i do that

before you speak on behalf of your own resolution? [laughter] >> without objection the resolution is passed. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. i want to say, it is a great pleasure for me to address you, mr. speaker. and to say that all that you have said and my good friend has said -- it has been a very touching thing for me. on thelarly to be here last day of the 103rd congress where so many of my colleagues

-- and to have a chance to say to all of you, republicans and democrats, what an honor it has been for me to serve with you. my congressional career has come to a close. satisfaction and gratitude. , to myde to so many constituents, who gave me their confidence for so many years. honor ofme the great representing so many of our fellow citizens and this central place of american democracy, the house of representatives. two, staff and principally, my wife, who has served without pay or compensation is my chief of staff for so many years, giving unselfishly of her time and talent to me and to the people

of my district and our district and our state. to all of my colleagues past and present, who have honored me by allowing me to serve with them. is a greatution institution. it is, unfortunately, not always seen in its full and proper dimensions by our fellow citizens. that is a great tragedy. of all the institutions of our public life, it is in the congress and particularly in the house of representatives where this country's judgment and hopes and concerns and ambitions and decisions are made for the future. , all of us, those in public life and those who leave it, to ensure that the true dimension of the work that is done here is understood and

appreciated because other countries have presidents and courts and magistrates. but it is best institution, which for so many of the people of the world, has represented the congress, the place where they come together to speak the voice of american democracy. it is that voice that has found choed -- echoed and resounding out in the world today. a special responsibility to ensure that our own citizens do not fail to understand the value and importance of this, there house of representatives. in leaving, i thank you. i salute you, and i wish you

all, those of you who are leaving with me, and those who thll be part of the 104 congress, every success in the future. follow in thisho great responsibility, that they will have some of the same satisfaction and some of the great opportunities which i have alwaysd for which i will be deeply, deeply grateful. thank you. goodbye. [applause]

>> speaker, if i might exercise the prerogative of the chair for just a moment. say to my dear colleagues on both sides of the aisle, first, mr. speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to wield this gavel at least one time and sit in the chair. it was something to behold. [applause]

but more important, the speaker just spoke with great eloquence and insight into this institution and what we do here as a body. i just want to say to all of the members on both sides of the aisle how much i appreciate the camaraderie and the cordiality that i have enjoyed during my tenure in this body. and all those wonderful, good things that have happened to me and your year acknowledgment from time to time gets overwhelming. i want you all to know, some of us chose to leave voluntarily. some of us, obviously, did not.

that is the way the system works. more importantly, those memories we take away from this body, hopefully, they will be cherished ones of the wonderful days we spent as a member of the u.s. congress. one. you, each and every i yield back to the distinguished speaker. [applause] around the capital at half staff for tom foley. he died yesterday at the age of 84. congressman bill young passed complications of a back industry. he was 80 two years old. congressman david price tweeted, sad to hear of the passing of my colleagues, bill young, a longtime appropriator tom of the caredearly about --

deeply about the house as an institution. jenkins, aive lynn republican from kansas said, the house lost two of its dedicated statesmen and servants, speaker tom foley and representative bill young. you will be missed. >> during the depression, she was thought to be out of touch with the people. after her death, it was discovered she provided financial help to hundreds of americans in need and never cashed the check of those who paid her back. onou -- on special lou hoover. i have here are the my day columns. the first one is eleanor roosevelt's first my day column.

it sets the tone for the my day columns to follow. they are getting back to the regular schedule after the holiday season. this clipping is a my day clipping from 1940, election day. she talks about at midnight in larger crowd than usual came in from high heart. park.e this was a tradition. the roosevelts would gather with family and the president would come out and greet them. ,> first lady eleanor roosevelt monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3. now to the u.s. supreme court where the justices heard oral arguments tuesday in a case dealing with a 2000 since ballot initiative that bands michigan schools from considering --

bans michigan schools from considering race or gender. the oral arguments for the case. this is about an hour. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the issue in this case is whether a michigan constitutional provision requiring equal treatment violates equal protection. and for two reasons, the answer is no. first, unlike the laws at issue in hunter and seattle, section 26 does not repeal an antidiscrimination law. instead, it repeals preferences and thus, it's an impediment to preferential treatment, not equal treatment. >> holt had nothing to do with an antidiscrimination law. it had to do with a remedy, defective segregation. why isn't this identical to seattle?

>> justice sotomayor, it's not identical because of the remedy issue. in seattle, they were trying to create, in the court's words, equal educational opportunity by imposing a remedy that would result in equality in the schools. >> you don't think that the proponents of affirmative action are attempting to do the same thing? one of the bill sponsors here said that this constitutional amendment will bring back desegregation in michigan, and it appears to have done just that. >> well, there's two points to that question and i'll address them both. first on the merits, under grutter, the point of preferences in university admissions cannot be solely the benefit of the minority, because under grutter, it's supposed to benefit the campus as a whole through diversity, and which we think is a laudable goal. it's a forward-looking action, not a backward-looking action, to remedy past discrimination. and we know that because under grutter, you can use preferences whether or not there's de facto or de jure segregation, simply to get the benefit. but with respect to your -- your point about the university of michigan and what has or has not

happened here, two thoughts on that. first, we have the statistics that we discuss in our reply brief where it's not clear that that the diversity on michigan's campus has gone down. but our main point on that is -- is not those numbers, but the fact that there are other things that the university of michigan could be doing to achieve diversity in race-neutral ways. for example, we know that --- >> i thought that in grutter, all of the social scientists had pointed out to the fact that all of those efforts had failed. that's one of the reasons why the -- i think it was a law school claim in michigan was upheld. >> well, there's social science evidence that goes both ways. but i want to focus on the university of michigan because there's two things that they could be doing right now that would get them closer to the race-neutral goal. the first thing is that they could eliminate alumnae preferences. other schools have done that. they have not. that's certainly one way that tilts the playing field away from underrepresented minorities. the other one, and this is

really important, is the focus on socioeconomic -- >> it's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children and now you're going to do away for that preference for them. it seems that the game posts keeps changing every few years for minorities. >> given the makeup of michigan's alumnae right now, certainly that playing field would be tilted the other way. the other thing that we practice is socioeconomic diversity. and at the university of michigan, there was a stat in "the wall street journal" just two days ago that if you measure that by pell grants, the number of students who are eligible for those, at the university, the number of students who have pell grants is half what it is at more progressive institutions like berkeley and the university of texas at austin. so the university of michigan could be trying harder. but our point isn't to get into a debate about whether preferences are a good or bad thing, because that's not what this case is about. the question is whether the people of michigan have the choice through the democratic process to accept this court's invitation in grutter to try race-neutral means. >> mr. bursch, could you go back

>> well, while you're on seattle, can you -- i have difficulty distinguishing seattle. one factual difference is that there was a school board there, a directly-elected school board elected for a short term of years. here there's a board of trustees. is that -- is that the distinguish -- a distinguishing factor in the case in which a principal distinction could be made? >> i think it's a distinguishing factor. you know, kind of sticking with how hard is it under the new political process. and i think the chart that we have on page 17 of our reply brief explains that it's really easier to change race-based admissions policies now than it was before section 26. and that's one basis. but i think the more fundamental basis is to say, you know, what seattle is about. and -- and if you indulge me, i'm going to suggest that seattle could mean one of three things. one of those i think you should clearly reject, and then the other two i think are --are possible interpretations that you could adopt. when seattle talks about racial classifications, it focuses on

laws that have a racial focus. now, right out of the box, equal protection is about people, not about laws, but even more fundamentally, that cannot be the right test. at a minimum, that part of seattle has to go because if you had a race-neutral law, like michigan's equal protection clause, which forbids discrimination on the basis of race or sex -- you know, it mirrors the concept of the federal clause -- that itself would be subject to strict scrutiny because it has a racial focus. so we know that can't be right and that's respondent's position. so that leaves you two other choices. and one would be an incremental change to this political restructuring doctrine; the other would be a more aggressive change. the incremental change would be to interpret racial classification in seattle as meaning a law that, one, repeals an antidiscrimination provision, as it did in hunter and seattle; and two, removes that issue to a higher level of the decision- making process. and because michigan's law requires equal treatment, it eliminates preferences, not an antidiscrimination law. that would be a way that you could keep seattle and hunter as a viable doctrine, and still rule in our favor on this case. >> i don't see the distinction. bussing could be viewed, and was viewed, to benefit only one group.

it was a preference for blacks to get into better schools. that's the way the case was pitched, that was its justification, and to integrate the society. affirmative action has the same gain. we've said that in fisher; it should be to diversify the population, so it favors diversity as opposed to desegregation. >> right. but there's a difference between favoring diversity as an abstract concept on campus, which grutter clearly allows, and remedying past discrimination, which was the point of the bussing in seattle. and that's why we're really in a post-seattle world now, because under -- >> but there -- there was no proof that there was any de jure segregation in seattle. >> that's correct because, at the time of seattle's decision, we didn't yet have parents involved, and so there wasn't a strict scrutiny test that was being applied to that bussing

program. and so you didn't have to go as far as you would today if you wanted to uphold that same bussing program. but what really -- what ties this case up -- >> but you're saying there are three things. one, the first you reject. >> yes. >> the law was a racial focus. >> it can't be because of racial focus. >> ok. and the second was an incremental improvement in the in the democratic process -- or democratic responsibility? >> that, plus -- >> responsiveness, i guess. >> right. that, plus repealing an antidiscrimination law. i think that's a narrow way -- >> and was there a third, did you say? >> well, the third way is really to -- to look at racial focus and say that's wrong, and maybe this whole doctrine needs to be reexamined. and the way that you could do that is to look at what seattle and hunter are really doing, which is falling right into the washington v. davis line of cases. both of those cases could have

been resolved by saying, one, there's a disparate impact; and two, given the facts and circumstances in 1969, akron, ohio and 1982, seattle, washington, that there was discriminatory animus based on race. and if you did that, you could reconcile those cases with washington v. davis and the entire line of equal protection jurisprudence this court has used since that time. >> but there is such a claim in this case, it just wasn't decided -- wasn't there a racial animus, that the reason for proposition 2 was to reduce the minority population? the court of appeals didn't get to that, but there was such a claim. >> there was a claim, but, your honor, there was also a decision. and the district court was really clear on this. keep in mind that this was a summary judgment posture, and the district court concluded properly that there wasn't even a question of material disputed fact with respect to intent. this is at pages 317 to 319 of the supplemental appendix petition. and that's because the primary motivation for section 26 included so many nondiscriminatory reasons, including the belief of some in michigan that preferences are themselves race discrimination. others that -- race-neutral alternatives is actually a

better way to achieve campus diversity that results in better outcomes for underrepresented minority students. some could believe that the preferences result in mismatch, as justice thomas is -- >> that, it seemed to me a good distinction for hunter and mulkey v. reitman, which the briefs don't talk much about. >> yes. >> but not necessarily a distinction in seattle because seattle you could argue, well, there are other methods that are less racially divisive. >> and i think -- and i would like to come back to reitman because that fits into this framework, too. but i think if you have any question about what seattle really meant, the place to look is the later decision in cuyahoga falls, because in cuyahoga the court specifically mentions, quote, "the evil of discriminatory intent present in seattle." that's at pages 196 to 197 of the opinion. and it also talks about the

decisionmakers' statements as evidence of discriminatory intent in the hunter case, at page 195. and so i think if you look at cuyahoga falls, it has already done some of the work for you if you are going to take the more conservative route and say there's intent. >> but i don't see how the argument would be any different here. one of the main sponsors of this bill said it was intended to segregate again. the voters in seattle were not all filled with animus; some of them just cared about their children not leaving -- not having outsiders come in. i mean, there's always voters who have good intent. >> that's true and there is always some bad apples, too. we don't dispute that point. but -- but here you have a district court holding that there is not even a material question of fact with respect to animus, because there are so many reasons that could be advanced, legitimate reasons again, about mismatch and about the benefits of racial -- >> in seattle as well. so it wasn't the issue of animus that drove seattle. >> i think it's much harder in seattle, your honor.

but to fit reitman into this discussion and what i would consider the more conservative way to deal with seattle and hunter, one that would preserve those as a doctrine, is to think about how reitman would come out under that test. in reitman, of course, you had antidiscrimination laws just like in hunter at the local level, which were then repealed by a state constitutional amendment. and the political restructuring doctrine had not yet been invented yet, and so what the court did is it relied on the california supreme court's finding that there was discriminatory animus in striking down those antidiscrimination laws. i think that if you view hunter and seattle similarly as cases where if you repeal an antidiscrimination law, as opposed to one that requires equal treatment, that's the narrow way to cabin those cases and ones that -- a way that would allow those cases to survive, yet to distinguish section 26. one point that we haven't discussed much is the democratic process, and it's important that i emphasize that, obviously, the use of race-based and sex-based

preferences in college education is certainly one of the most hotly contested issues of our time. and some believe that those preferences are necessary for campus diversity. others think that they are not necessary, and in fact that we would have a much better world if we moved past the discussion about race and instead based it on race-neutral criteria. >> mr. bursch, can i ask you to go back to the very first thing you said, because i didn't get your -- your point. the question -- what impact has the termination of affirmative action had on michigan, on the enrollment of minorities in the university of michigan? do we have any clear picture of that, what effect the repeal of affirmative action has had? >> yes, justice ginsburg, we have a muddy picture. as we explain in our reply brief, the first thing that we

have is the actual statistics for the first full year after section 26 went into effect. this is 2008. and what we find is that the number of underrepresented minorities as part of the entering freshman class at michigan as a percentage changed very little. it went from about 10-3/4 percent to about 10-1/4 percent. then it gets very difficult to track, because, following the u.s.census's lead, in 2010 the university of michigan stopped requiring students to check only a single box to demonstrate what their race or ethnicity was and moved to a multiple checkbox system. and justice sotomayor, when you see in the amici briefs that there has been a dramatic drop, for example, in african american students on campus at the university of michigan, those numbers don't take into account that people who before were forced to check a single box now could be checking multiple boxes. and if you fold in the multiple checkbox students, the number of underrepresented minorities on

campus actually comes out higher. now, we don't know what those numbers are, because you could have a student who might be white and asian and they would not be considered an underrepresented minority, and they could be in there; but we know that the numbers are a lot closer than when you just look at single checkbox students in isolation. >> so what do we do with the statistics from california? an amici from california, their attorney general, has shown, another state with a similar proposition, has shown the dramatic drop. >> well, the statistics in california across the 17 campuses in the university of california system show that today the underrepresented minority percentage is better on 16 out of those 17 campuses. it's not at berkeley; they haven't gotten there yet; but it's better on the rest. and by going to race-neutral criteria, what they discovered was that underrepresented minority students have higher gpas, that they take more technology, engineering and math

classes, and they have a graduation rate that is 20% to 25% higher than it was before california's proposition 209. you can see similar effects in texas in their top 10 percent program before it was modified. and not only did it have those positive impacts, but it actually increased minority performance at social- economically disadvantaged high schools, where the students said hey, if i can only get into the top 10 percent of my class, i can be in the university of texas at austin. and again, we can all agree that diversity on campus is a goal that should be pursued. what the california and texas experiences have demonstrated is that there are good, positive reasons why the voters might want to try a race-neutral alternative. >> so why is it ok to have taken away -- not ok to have taken

away the decision to have bussing from the local school boards, the people on the ground, but it's ok to take that power away from the people on the ground here, the board of regents, who are also elected like the school board was in seattle? >> because as -- >> the general population has feelings about many things, but the only decision that they're educational decision that they are taking away from the board of regents is this one -- affirmative action. everything else they leave within the elected board of regents. >> you've put your finger on the fulcrum of respondents' best argument, that only race as a factor alone has been removed. and there their argument is exactly backwards, because it's not michigan or section 26 that single out race. it's the equal protection clause itself, because, justice sotomayor, if a student wants to lobby for an alumni preference or a cello preference and put it in the state constitution, strict scrutiny is never applied to that effort. but when you try to get a preference based on race or not based on race in the federal -- or the state constitution, strict scrutiny is always applied. and so it's the equal protection clause which is making a differentiation between race and everything else. and that's why this court in crawford, again decided the same day as seattle, at page 538, recognized, quote, "a distinction between state action that discriminates on the basis of race and state action that addresses in neutral fashion race-related matters." and section 26 falls into that latter category.

>> you have been asked several questions that refer to the ending or termination of affirmative action. that's not what is at issue here, is it? >> no, and i'm glad that you brought that up, chief justice roberts, because affirmative action means a lot more than simply the use of race or sex- based preferences in university admissions. the -- article i, section 26, only focuses on this one aspect of university admissions. now, another important point to understand is that section 26 is not all about university admissions. this is actually a much broader law that applies not just to race and ethnicity, but also to sex and other factors, and that affects not just universities but also public contracting and public employment. this was a broad-based law that was primarily motivated by the people of michigan's decision to move past the day when we are always focused on race, exactly as grutter invited the states to do. and you can -- you can see how that discussion gets mired when you look at some of these statistics that we have been talking about. is someone who has multiple racial boxes checked more or

less diverse than someone who only has one box checked? is someone who comes from outside the country -- say from mexico -- >> you've done something much more. you are basically saying, because fisher and grutter -- we've always applied strict scrutiny -- >> correct. >> all right. so it's essentially a last resort, within some reason. but what you are saying, if all those other measures fail, you're by constitution saying you can't go to the remedy that might work. >> no, that's not what we are saying. >> well, but you're -- but this amendment is stopping the political process. it's saying the board of regents can do everything else in the field of education except this one. >> well, again, it actually runs the other way, because equal protection is what singles out

race-focused measures for strict scrutiny. but what we're saying is under grutter, race preferences are barely permissible. it cannot be unconstitutional for the people to choose not to use them anymore, to accept this court's invitation in grutter, to move past the discussion about race and into a race- neutral future. >> what would you do with a constitutional amendment that said pro-affirmative action laws, and only those, require a three-quarters vote of the state legislature? >> well, under what we're going to call the narrow "save hunter and seattle," something like that would be unconstitutional because it removes an antidiscrimination provision and moves it to a higher level of government. now, one of the problems with

keeping that doctrine is it could also work the opposite way. you know, pretend that the political climate in michigan was turned on its head and that universities had agreed that they were no longer going to use race or sex in admissions and that it was the state electorate, either in the legislature or in the constitution, which imposed a grutter plan on everyone. well, under hunter and seattle, that would have to go because that law removes an antidiscrimination provision and moves it to the higher level. and so that would be one reason why you might want to take the washington v. davis approach and consider whether there's discriminatory animus based on race. but, you know, in either of those cases, i think you can either, you know, pare down the doctrine or get rid of it entirely and distinguish our case from it. but the one point that i want to leave you with today is that the the core of respondent's arguments that somehow a racial classification can be any law that has a racial focus, cannot be the right test. no matter what, that portion of seattle and hunter has to go, because equal protection is about protecting individuals, not about protecting laws; and

even nondiscriminatory race- neutral laws that have a racial focus would fall under their racial focus test. you know, the hypothetical we give in our briefs on that, besides a state equal protection clause, would be the federal fair housing act because it references race, it has a racial focus, in the words of seattle and hunter, and it has the ability of preventing anyone from lobbying for preferences based on their race or sex at lower levels of the government, either state or local. so under their theory, the federal fair housing act would have to be applied under strict scrutiny. and their only response to that in the brief is that -- well, the supremacy clause takes care of that problem. and we all know supremacy doesn't kick in until you first determine that the federal law itself is constitutional, and it wouldn't be under their theory. so -- so what we're asking you to do is eliminate that portion of hunter and seattle that suggests that a law's racial focus is the sine qua non of a political restructuring doctrine

test and to either -- >> mr. bursch, isn't -- >> yes. >> isn't the position that was taken in seattle derived from a different view of the equal protection clause? i mean, strict scrutiny was originally put forward as a protection for minorities -- a protection for minorities against hostile disadvantageous legislation. and so the view then was we use strict scrutiny when the majority is disadvantaging the minority. so you do, under the carolene products view, you do focus on race and you ask, is the minority being disadvantaged? if that were the view, then i suppose we would not be looking at this, well, the criterion is race and wherever the disadvantage falls, whether a majority or minority, it's just the same.

that wasn't the original idea of when strict scrutiny is appropriate. so if we were faithful to that notion, that it is -- measures a disadvantage the -- the minority that get strict scrutiny. >> well, two thoughts on that, justice ginsburg. first, under grutter, this court made crystal clear that a grutter plan is not about which minority group is being advantaged or disadvantaged. it's supposed to benefit the campus as a whole. and to the extent the claim is that preferences benefit certain classes of minorities and not others, you know, for example,

it benefits african americans and latinos, but not asians, even though they're both discrete and insular underrepresented groups, that -- then it fails under grutter. it can only be something that benefits everybody. but more fundamentally, going back to your question about the origin of the doctrine, i think it's really important to understand why we have hunter, because hunter, remember, was decided before washington v. davis. and when you look at the face of the law in akron, ohio in hunter, there's nothing in there that would trigger strict scrutiny. and so this court was searching for another way to -- to strike down a law that removed an antidiscrimination provision and made it more difficult to reenact at the higher level of the political process. it needed something to fix that. and our point is you can either construe it to do exactly that, that only antidiscrimination laws being struck down and moved to a higher level can satisfy a political restructuring doctrine, or you can look at it differently. you can say now that we've got washington v. davis and we all know what the intent was in akron, that that is a simpler way to address this -- this

problem and we really don't need the political restructuring doctrine at all anymore. but the reason why we had the doctrine in hunter is because strict scrutiny did not apply. >> you said that the district court found it was clear that there was no --there was no discriminatory intent, but that wasn't reviewed on appeal. >> no, it was not. but it wasn't a finding. it was actually more than that. it was at the summary judgment stage. the district court correctly concluded there wasn't even a question of disputed material fact as to whether intent was the primary motivation of the electorate. unless there are any further questions, i will reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rosenbaum. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, let me begin, justice kennedy, with the questions you raise and

then come to the question that chief justice roberts raised. to begin, justice kennedy, there's no way to distinguish the seattle case from this case nor the hunter case. both those cases have to be overruled. here is why the seattle case is is identical to this case. both issues -- both cases involve constitutionally permissible plans which had as their objective obtaining diversity on campuses. seattle was a k-12 case. this case is a higher education case. but in both instances, the objective was to obtain diversity. no constitutional mandate to relieve past discrimination. rather, in fact, as the court said, seattle, tacoma, and wasco were attempting to deal with de facto segregation. >> is that an accurate description of seattle? i thought that in seattle, before the school board adopted the bussing plan, the city was threatened with lawsuits by the department of justice, by the federal government, and by private plaintiffs, claiming that the -- the previous pupil assignment plan was -- involved de jure segregation. isn't that -- isn't that correct?

>> that's correct with respect to at least one of the districts, justice alito. but in terms of the program itself, there's no dispute that it was done pursuant to a plan for de facto segregation. moreover, the question you asked, justice kennedy -- >> i don't understand the answer to that question. as to seattle itself, is it not the case that they were threatened with litigation? >> yes, but there'd been no finding, justice alito, of de jure segregation. >> and isn't it correct that the district court found that there was de jure segregation? >> that is not correct. >> it didn't? >> there was -- there was no finding whatsoever that there had been de jure segregation and that there was a constitutional imperative to correct that desegregation. it was an absolutely identical situation. and regarding the accountability, your honor is correct that in seattle what we were dealing with was an elected school board and here, as the michigan brief says, as the wayne state brief says, as the court specifically found at pages 326a and 327a of the record, this is a political process in which the regents

were elected, have at all times maintained plenary authority over the admissions process itself, and that -- >> well, there are two things. number one is it delegated to the faculty. and number two, they're election -- they're elected only rarely and in staggered terms. >> that -- that -- that is no question that that's correct, your honor. but the --the ordinary process itself is a politically accountable process. that's what the district court found when it looked at how the system worked. and in fact -- >> what if the -- what if the -- the board delegated to the various universities the authority to develop their own admissions programs? >> it couldn't alter -- i'm sorry, chief roberts. >> and they did, and then after several years they decided, you know, we don't like the way it's working; they're adopting too many racial preference programs; we're going to revoke the

delegation. >> absolutely fine. >> why is that any --any different? >> because the difference is that in the seattle case, in this case, and in the hunter case, what's going on is a change from the ordinary political process, which your honor perfectly described. they can change it today. they can go to a -- an affirmative action plan today, repeal it tomorrow, come back. >> so if there were a provision in the michigan constitution that says the board of regents is authorized to enact these programs, in other words delegated from the people in the constitution to the board, and then the people change the delegation by saying, no, it's no longer -- we're no longer going to leave that up to the board, we're going to make the decision ourselves in the constitution, how is that any different? >> it is different, your honor, because of the racial nature of the decision. under their theory, under their theory, the people of the state of a state could amend their constitution, put in the legislature two rooms, one for racial matters, one for all other sorts of matters, and say to any entrant who wants to enter that first room -- you may do so, but first you have to pay an exorbitant cover charge and then you have to mount multiple stairs, flights of stairs, just

to begin the process of enacting constitutionally permissible legislation. or think about it in a desegregation case. a student comes in -- two students come into the admissions committee. one says -- and the admissions committee says -- we have one question for you, one question for you since you're here to talk about a legitimate -- a legitimate factor in pursuit of diversity. here's the question -- do you want to talk about your race, your race in the context of other factors? and if the answer is yes, that student is shown the door, told go raise between 5 and $15 million, repeal prop 2 and then you can come back to make -- make the case. whereas the student who says, no, i've just got another legitimate factor, maybe geography. maybe alumni confections -- connections, whatever that is, that person is permitted to make the case. it is a racial distinction. now, chief justice roberts, you're certainly onto something in terms of are there race- neutral methods to get this

done? of course there are. the state constitution itself could be altered so that a different committee or a different set of individuals could -- could make the decision that they don't like the way the regents are doing it. or they could do it the old- fashioned way, the way that the politically accountable system works, which is to say, we are going to work at these universities, that's how affirmative action involving race happened in the first place. that's at pages 270 to 271a and 282a to 293a. they worked for years to make that happen. >> well, i thought the whole purpose of strict scrutiny was to say that if you want to talk about race, you have a much higher hurdle to climb than if you want to talk about something else. now, you can argue that strict scrutiny should only apply to minorities and not to students who are not minorities, but i thought the court decided that a long time ago. >> exactly. >> so i don't know why that's a hard question that you asked about the student who says, i want to talk about race. what if it's a white student who comes in and says -- i want to talk about race; i'm white and therefore you should admit me,

you should give me preference. the state can't say, no, we don't want to hear that? >> the state can say, we don't want to hear that whether it comes from a white person or a black person or whomever, if in fact, they are not doing it on a race-specific basis. you're exactly right, of course, about strict scrutiny. and the programs in this case, indeed, the only programs in this case that are effective, are those that have passed strict scrutiny -- >> well, i don't understand your answer then. if the student -- one student comes in and says i want to talk about how well i play the cello, all right, we'll listen to that. i want to come in and talk about why i as a white person should get a preference; you have to listen to that because you're listening to the -- to the talk about the cello, too? >> you do, your honor, when the program has passed the strict scrutiny test that we're talking about. and that's the only sort of program that is at issue in this case. of course you're correct. if it is a gratz type program, if it's unconstitutional, if it's a quota system, you don't have to listen to anybody talk about race. but we are only dealing with

constitutionally permissible programs. why it is impossible, impossible to distinguish seattle? and this argument about hunter, page -- page 389 of the hunter decision is the reason hunter was decided. it's not a washington v. davis case. >> well, i'm not sure i understood the answer you gave to the chief justice's hypothetical. maybe i misunderstood the hypothetical. suppose the board of regents have a rule, it's written, it's a rule, that the faculty makes a determination on whether there should be affirmative action. >> yes. >> five -- and the faculty votes for affirmative action. three years later, the board of trustees said we're abolishing the rule; we're doing that ourselves. violation? >> assuming that the regents say that's fine, no problem whatsoever, no problem whatsoever. that's the ordinary political process. >> so the -- so the regents can take it away from the faculty? >> the regents have plenary -- >> but can the legislature take it away from the regents? >> not under the michigan constitution, because the

michigan constitution -- >> no, no. hypothetical case. >> ok. under -- who's got the authority here? the -- the legislature can take it away. that's not a problem in a -- in a situation where that's part of the ordinary process. >> but then the voters can't take it away. at what point is it that your objection takes force? i just don't understand -- i just don't understand -- >> where there is -- >> the declension here -- >> my apologies, your honor. >> or the crescendo, whatever you call it. \[laughter] >> both are music to my ears. the point, justice kennedy, is that the --the people of the state have multiple options available to them if they don't like the way the universities are operating. but the one option they don't have is to treat racial matters different from all other matters. the example that you gave -- >> that applies in the chief justice's hypothetical or my revision of it as between the board of regents and the faculty or between the faculty and the legislature. >> exactly. and the problem --the problem that the restructuring process gets at, because of the

particular concern that this court has shown with respect to the political process, that the political process itself not become outcome determinative; that the political process itself be a place where we can air these discussions, but not create it in a separate and unequal way to make the -- to actually make the decision itself through the process. so -- >> why is -- why is the faculty administration, a faculty decision, any less outcome determinative than what the voters would say? i -- i think there would be people that might disagree with your empirical assumption. >> then i'm not explaining it clearly. the first -- the -- when the faculty makes the decision, justice kennedy, that's part of the ordinary political process. nobody's allowed to win all the time. no one has to win all the time. no one has to win all the time. whatever it is, it is. that's the ordinary political process. that's how we use the political process. the problem with -- with mounting a racial classification within the constitution itself is that then -- that takes the ordinary political process to the extraordinary political process. that's -- >> so i mean, you could say that

the whole point of something like the equal protection clause is to take race off the table. is it unreasonable for the state to say, look, race is a lightning rod. we've been told we can have affirmative action programs that do not take race into account. socioeconomic diversity, elimination of alumnae preferences, all of these things. it is very expensive. whenever we have a racial classification, we're immediately sued. so why don't we say we want you to do everything you can without having racial preferences. now, if the litigation determines that we're required to have racial preferences, this statute has an exception and -- and allows that. but starting out, we want to take race off the table and try to achieve diversity without racial preferences. >> the problem, your honor, as this court stated as recently as last term in the fisher case, is that under the equal protection clause race is not all the way off the table. and the problem with proposal 2 is that the substance and the

message that it communicates is that because of the separate and unequal political track that is created with respect to the extraordinary steps that have to be taken, the message is that, even where race is being utilized as one of many factors in a constitutionally permissible way, the message that is being communicated is that all uses of race are illegitimate, all uses of race are -- are off the table, that "race" itself is a dirty word. >> why -- why doesn't the fourth amendment violate the rule you're saying -- or the 14th amendment violate the rule that you're proposing? i mean, i'm a minority and i want laws that favor my minority. not just in university; everywhere. my goodness, i can't have that through the normal legislative

process. i have to get a constitutional amendment to do it, right? >> that is correct, your honor. >> well, so i guess -- i guess that on this subject of equal treatment of the races, we can eliminate racism just at the -- at the legislative level, can't we? >> your honor, the underlying basis of the entire strict scrutiny doctrine in the 14th amendment is to preclude the government, preclude the legislative and executive branch, from making those determinations as absolute determinations. the 14th amendment sets the standards and the criteria by which we measure that. of course you're correct. that's what the 14th amendment does. it sets what the rules are in terms of how race is utilized. but what the grutter case said >> and you can't change those rules by normal legislation, correct? >> that is correct. >> so if you're a minority that wants favored treatment, you're just out of luck. >> you have to use the ordinary political process. and that's all we're saying. >> no, but the constitutional

amendment is not the ordinary political process. >> but the -- but the fact that it's a state constitutional amendment underscores my argument, which is that -- that in order for the -- for a -- the minority or any individual, and white, minority, whatever -- whatever the individual is, to say i want the same rule book, i want the same playing field, the problem with proposal 2 is that it creates two playing fields. >> if proposal 2 had been in the michigan constitution before any affirmative action program was adopted, would the result be the same? >> it would, your honor, because because it would be building in this explicitly facial racial classification into the state constitution. the problem are the separate and unequal systems that are being used to deal with race. and separate and unequal, under the 14th amendment, shouldn't come within ten feet of race. >> it's not a racial classification. you should not refer to it that way. >> it is a racial -- >> it's the prohibition of racial classifications. >> no, your honor. >> every prohibition of racial

classification is itself a racial classification? >> no, your honor. the problem with proposal 2 is that it is -- just as in hunter, just as in hunter -- it is an explicitly facial racial classification. it singles out race for different treatment. my goodness, this was borne -- this campaign started three days after grutter itself. the author said the purpose of it was to get rid of racial preferences. >> well, if that's how you're using racial classification, i thought it meant, you know, it's directed at blacks or asians -- >> no. >> or -- no. in that sense, the 14th amendment itself is a racial classification, right? >> well, it sets the standard -- >> in that sense, the 14th amendment itself is a racial classification. no? >> i don't agree with that, your honor, because i'm measuring it as a racial classification by the 14th amendment. and that comes back to justice ginsburg's argument. his argument, his revisionist history of hunter, his -- was -- was about motive. but, your honor, that had

nothing to do with the problem in this case. when the court looked -- when the district court looked -- may i finish my answer, chief justice roberts? >> yes. >> when the court looked at this particular issue, the concern was the way that it racially divided the political process itself. what he is saying is that, well, there may be all sorts of motives. that's a rational basis test, and that has nothing to do with the racial classification. the definition i'm using, justice scalia, is this court's definition of a racial classification, for which all sorts trigger strict scrutiny. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. ms. driver? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, we ask this court to uphold the sixth circuit decision to reaffirm the doctrine that's expressed in hunter-seattle, and to bring the 14th amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case.

>> my goodness, i thought we've we've held that the 14th amendment protects all races. i mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only -- only the blacks. but i thought we rejected that. you -- you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities? >> i think it is -- it's a measure that's an antidiscrimination measure. >> right. >> and it's a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined not just by --by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority. >> and unless that exists, the 14th amendment is not violated; is that right? so if you have a banding together of various minority

groups who discriminate against against whites, that's ok? >> i think that -- >> do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th amendment, that it protects only minorities? any case? >> no case of yours. >> some people think that there is a difference between the plus and the minus. some judges differ on that point. some agree sort of with you, and some agree sort of not. all right? let's think of those who agree sort of, and then i have a question. and you know this area better than i. so think of grutter. grutter permits affirmative action. think of the earlier cases. they permitted affirmative action where it was overcome, the effects of past discrimination, but probably not otherwise. now, that's what i want to know.

are there areas other than education where affirmative action would not be forbidden to achieve a goal other than overcoming the effects? have you got the question? and does an answer come to mind? >> i think that affirmative action programs could -- could be permissible under employment. for instance -- >> ok. so there are a set. >> that's right. >> fine. if there are a set, what i -- what i'd like you to explain, if if you can take a minute, is think of how a city is set up. there are a vast number of administrators. there are a vast number of programs. it could be an administrator somewhere says he'd like to give a preference, maybe for good reason. but then the city council votes no, because there are other ways of doing it, by, you know, first come, first served or some other criteria that doesn't use race. are all of those unlawful? every one?

do you have to leave it up to the -- no matter what the subject, no matter what the -- or are you going to draw a line somewhere? is there a line that you could draw that would take your case on the right side from your point of view, but would say we're not giving power to every administrator in the city to decide on his own whether to use racial preferences without a possibility of a higher-up veto >> i think -- >> which i don't think you want to say, but maybe you do. >> no. i think these are very fact- based determinations. and so, somebody could make a decision that they wanted to use what you're calling racial preferences. and that could mean a range of things, and that could be subject to a veto higher up. yeah, i agree with you. >> so what's the line? is there any line that you can say, look here. we were trying to be very helpful, and all of a sudden they put this thing on the ballot, you can't even get it through. ok? that's your basic point. but -- but if you think of -- you have to write something, and

that something has tremendous effect all over the place. so what kind of line is there, in your opinion? >> i think hunter-seattle provides the line. i think it says that if you have a law that has a racial focus, and that law, part of proving that it has a racial focus, is that it takes a benefit that inures to minorities and it removes that benefit and it restructures the political process and places a special burden on minorities to re- ascertain that right, yeah, i think that's a proper rule. because it's -- it's -- >> can i -- can i come back to the question that the chief justice and justice kennedy were asking before? essentially, it's their question. let's say that the -- the decision about admissions criteria across the board is basically delegated to the faculty. all right? and the faculty adopts some sort of affirmative action plan. and now that is overruled in favor of a colorblind approach

at various levels going up the ladder. so maybe it's overruled by the the dean of -- by a dean, or maybe it's overruled by the president of the university. maybe it's overruled by the regents. maybe, if state laws allowed, it's -- it's overruled by an executive department of the state. maybe it's overruled by the legislature through ordinary legislation. maybe it's overruled through a constitutional amendment. at what point does the political restructuring doctrine kick in? >> i think in this case, the difference between what other groups can do in order to get preferential treatment for their sons and daughters and what racial minorities are subject to, the level of distinction places such a high burden on minorities. >> well, that really -- that really isn't responsive to my question. let's say exactly what was done here is done at all of these levels. at what point does the doctrine kick in? when it goes from the faculty to the dean? from the dean to the president, et cetera, et cetera? where does this apply? >> i think it depends on where it is that minorities face a heavier and special burden. >> it can't be that, because the normal political process imposes burdens on different groups.

i thought the line was a very simple one, which is if the normal academic decision-making is in the dean, the faculty, at whatever level, as long as the normal right to control is being exercised, then that person could change the decision. so if they delegate most admissions decisions, as i understand from the record, to the faculty, but they still regularly, besides race, veto some of those decisions, and race is now one of them, then the board of regents can do that normally. so could the president, if that's the way it's normally done. it's when the process is -- political process has changed specifically and only for race, as a constitutional amendment here was intended to do, that the political doctrine is violated. have i restated? >> you have, you restated it

very well, and i agree with you in principle. >> but i still don't understand your answer to justice alito's question. suppose the dean has authority in the bylaws of the university to reverse what the faculty does, but you have a dean who just does not like affirmative action. he is dead against it. and he makes the decision to reverse the faculty. do you have a remedy? >> i don't think it -- i don't think hunter-seattle applies. >> all right. then you have justice alito's question. then it's the president of the university, and then it's the legislature. >> i think you need two things think you need the

decisionmaking -- the decisionmaking body. if the university of michigan regents decided tomorrow to eliminate affirmative action programs and there was no prop 2, they have the legal right to do that. they are the decision-making body. and minorities still could go and lobby the regents, still could go and talk about the questions of racial equality difference -- >> but would that be true --i'm sorry. would that be true if they had never gotten involved in admissions criteria before? they have the authority, but they left that to the university officials. >> i think if they have the >> i think if they have the plenary authority to do that, yeah, i think that, again, if they wanted to eliminate affirmative action programs and

they had that plenary authority and it was guaranteed by the michigan state constitution and it had existed for 150 years, and they chose to enter this area, i think -- >> i don't see how that is consistent with justice sotomayor's answer to my question. don't the people of michigan have -- don't the people of michigan have plenary authority? >> in this case, the particular it's -- they are applying that plenary authority in --or in a way that is racially focused, and creates a political process that is disadvantageous to minorities. >> i'm not saying instead of political process. don't let me put words in your mouth. think what you think here. you say where the authority is divided in a certain way, and ths