the american people that our elected officials that infrastructure investment is a smart bet for our people, our companies, and our economy. congress and the obama administration have their role to play. they need to own up to the responsibility of implementing a smart, forward-looking, transparent, and accountable infrastructure program with the necessary funding, please underline. the private sector has a role to play in a significant way as well. we need to come up with solutions, we need to craft a plan, and we need to sell it far and wide. today i am pleased to announce that the incoming chairman of the board will help us lead a national roundtable dialogue which will take place in five or six cities on each of the five pillars we discussed today.

it might be more cities and five pillars. we will then transmit a report to the president, the congress, and everyone else that will listen with their principles and recommendations. some have accused me of being an optimist. i cannot help myself. i am irish for the most part. some people think -- well -- [laughter] so i say it is time to start viewing this issue as an opportunity, not only as a challenge. if we are smart, we can set a path that will ensure adequate funding for years to come. we can create jobs and we really need them. we can spur economic growth the country needs. we can promote cooperation among all levels of government and private sector. we can ensure that money is spent wisely on projects with the greatest national and if it. and we can build trust and confidence in the american

people and make clear all of the benefits this investment will bring. the chamber is committed. my colleagues supporting this effort are committed, and we look forward to working with you to get it done. by the way, if you go to every event this week and then just go home and do not do anything, nothing is going to happen. so somebody, all of us have gotten go up and explain it to our representatives that we are so glad to have them and we need the money. or we might not keep them. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, tom. this is straight talk about our transportation problems which is one of the reasons i like to work at the chamber.

please do not be shy. there is a whole other side of the room here. i was unable to construct a new entrance this morning, so you've got to help me out and walk all the way over there. we wanted to start today hearing from tom, but also hearing from leaders of real top-notch business organizations, each with a slightly different mission and approach, but all of which emphasize the concept of competitiveness, which the world economic forum defined as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine a level of productivity of a country, which sounds very serious. that is a pretty big set of policies -- education, trade, tax policy, immigration, foreign policy. i could keep going on if it takes them longer to mike them up. what each of these association ceo's want is the best platform upon which businesses can

succeed and the united states can compete him and to help us big into how infrastructure relates to competitiveness, today we are pleased to welcome cnbc's eamon javers. did i say that right? yes. he has worked at businessweek and politico, appeared as an analyst on all the major broadcast networks, and if you watch "washington week," you'll will often see him on the panel. he is the author of a book you might want to pick up. so i will turn things over to you. thank you, and thank you to our panel. >> thank you very much, and thank you very much for the plug for the book. this is a fascinating time to have this conversation. i want to introduce the panel.

we will have plenty of time for questions. i hope that your questions will be more insightful than mine. i want to get to that as quickly as we can. starting here, you all know tom. thank you for being here. we also have jay timmons, deborah wince-smith, nancy mclernon. thank you all for being here. let me start out with a statistic that i read last week that i thought was fascinating. so much of this conversation focuses on big businesses and what their needs are. that is important, but this is also a conversation about american jobs and the overall economy. the s&p did a study by their chief economist last week and said that there estimates show that investing $1.3 billion in

infrastructure creates 20,000 u.s. jobs and adds $2 billion to real gdp with potentially larger gains over the long term. if we could, starting with jay, give us your thoughts on what infrastructure needs for jobs first and then the broader economy. >> thanks, and it is great to be here with such a diverse group of people. it is great to have tom kick this off as usual. tom gave us some good things to think about and has really presented a challenge as we all know it here. the fact that we are so diverse and that the sponsors are so diverse, is a testament to the fact that we can get something done here. eamon, it is about jobs and manufacturers. it is about competitiveness. if you look at our competitors around the world and what they

are doing good infrastructure, you realize they are not stuck in the 20th century. they are moving forward to the 21st and planning for the 22nd century. that means if we are going to keep up with our competitors we have got to do the same thing here. for manufacturers, it matters in every step of the process, whether it is receiving input for our goods or being able to deliver our products to our customers here in the united states or to customers abroad. you mentioned the statistic for every 1.3 billion invested in infrastructure spending it creates 22,000 jobs. that is a pretty basic figure, and that is borne out. for manufacturers, for every dollar invested in infrastructure spending, results in about 40 cents for manufacturers. when we look at all the different research products that have been done, studies that

have been done, everybody agrees, we've got to do something. i brought with me a little hint here of the studies that have been done in the last five years. this is just five years' worth -- >> have you read all those? >> she has. this is just a sample, not everything that is come out, but a lot of this is from the federal government, states, think tanks and our group here, and the conclusion is all the same. we have a problem and we have got to do something about it. we have partnered with building america's future, one of the sponsors today, and we surveyed manufacturers. john mclaughlin and another will give you more information on this poll. 70% of manufacturers, the people that his country relies on to generate the lifeblood of the economy, 70% of manufacturers think our infrastructure is in poor or fair shape. 2/3 of manufacturers believe

that every single possible funding solution needs to be put on the table for discussion. it does not mean that we are all going to like what the outcome of every one of those potential solutions, but at least we should be talking about it. and we do need a multi-year long-term strategy for transportation so that we are protecting america's mantle of economic leadership. >> this is about jobs, but also politics. i wonder if the politics of this infrastructure conversation have been damaged from your perspective by the obama stimulus, the question of whether or not government spending can create jobs, having become so controversial? does that make your job going out and selling infrastructure investment the congress harder? >> well, we have not increased

the federal fuel tax in 20 years. and the president has been in town for five and change. so we still had a 15-year head start of not doing what we should have done. i do think that you could say because of the crisis we had economically, because -- and the chamber supported the program he put in -- we disagree with a lot of the stuff in it, but america had to do something. the world was watching -- but what we have been saying the whole time, and we have the big sign on our building about jobs, by the way, 20 some thousand jobs worth $1 billion-plus, but i do not think the named names here.

here is a chance to put people to work, save lives, because a lot of -- kills a lot of people, and to our national security and which is why the roads were built in the first place, and run funds into state and federal coffers by people and institutions that are doing this work. and i think it is time to say, ok, enough is enough for my now do it. there may be and we get ready to run out of money halfway through this year it will be a little easier to get their attention. >> deborah, in your streets do you think people are more willing to hear that argument this year than in past years? what is the receptiveness? >> they're willing to hear the argument, but if you put into

the broader context of u.s. global exports and leadership as well as jobs and economy, we could clearly make the case very easily, we have the data, and think group that has tinkered together and i am proud to be with them, has documented our work, not only do we have a federal deficit, we have an infrastructure deficit. the amount we are under investing compared to our peers and competitors is staggering, and we are seeing the impact on that on the competitiveness of our firms. we need to relate this to what we would call at the u.s. council on competitiveness and innovation deficit, because so much of the opportunity and the costs and what we are going to do to really take america into this 21st century infrastructure journey is an innovation journey. when you think of the new material some of the i.t. systems, the sensors, the whole

-- all the things that will enable our firms to be the leaders in the 21st century manufacturing -- just think of the infrastructure opportunities now that relate to the energy transformation. and the discussion right now about the keystone pipeline and all that going on, you think of the old pipes in the ground, but get this one, hopefully it will get approved, is going to be the state-of-the-art. no country in the world will have that. then the high-skilled jobs. i would like to put on the table that the competitiveness agenda for this country is about talent, technology, investment, and infrastructure, but all of that takes us to an innovation economy where we are going to have high-skilled jobs him and this whole infrastructure rebuilding and what it means for america really is freeing all those things together. in many ways, the infrastructure challenge becomes the systems integrator for all the things we need to do as a nation, and he

clearly needs to be bipartisan and it needs to have a book-private art ships. and i want to call out our friend and colleague of all of us at the table, paul, because a lot of his leadership has gotten us here to this infrastructure week. it is a tremendous opportunity for america's future. >> nancy, talk a little bit about the perspective of those companies that are coming here to the united states, looking to do some of this work. what are they looking to do and what are the challenges that your group faces? >> thanks so much, and thank you all for having us on this panel. a distinguished group here. it is very diverse, but it is good to be here to talk about a topic that so many of us agree on, and my company's somewhat different perspective than those we've talked about today. they are not homegrown companies. they have made a deliberate decision to come to the u.s., invest here, insource jobs to the u.s.

it is a good thing for our economy. we did a study that said in sourcing companies over a decade period raise their industry average in almost every relevant economic indicator. they increased gdp by 25%. they pay a 22% premium in terms of wages and compensation to their u.s. workers, over 5.6 million americans. they invest heavily in u.s. r&d, buy locally, and they produce here not only to serve u.s. customers, but to serve the world as well. they produce about 20% of u.s. exports. infrastructure is very important. these companies are very diverse. i represent sony, siemens, basf, nestlé, so they are very diverse. but the cfo's of our companies

in a recent survey said quality of infrastructure is one of the top factors in choosing a location for investment. it is not a coincidence that the quality of the u.s. infrastructure has declined so has our share of cross-border investment. in 2000, the u.s. won 37% of all cross-border investment. in 2012, it is 17%. countries are improving their infrastructure. >> where are those companies going? who are our biggest competitors as a nation in terms of the infrastructure and resources? what are the other options if you're a big global company saying the united states crumbling, i'm going to go to x or y? >> i would jump in and say china is making huge investments. i have a long way to go.

we did a study at the council with deloitte looking at what global ceo's around the world think about manufacturing competitiveness. in terms of infrastructure, the u.s. was ranked number 19 in that. the good news for us in that overall study was talent-driven innovation and a lot of the intellectual assets are in huge places with customers and markets. start start they are having huge problems right now with the world cup. brazil has a very sophisticated strategy with their brazilian international economic development bank. it is being leveraged for infrastructure. obviously, i will let my colleagues speak. clearly, the emerging markets in asia, but also recently in the middle east, another part of the world that is ensuring that they will have a state of the art infrastructure, whether it is reports or goods. a lot of us have been to

singapore and we see how these city states are also becoming magnets for a lot of the production, not necessarily the innovation work. >> and deborah mentioned the p3's. my companies headquartered abroad are familiar with public-private partnerships. england went there about three decades ago. deborah mentioned brazil and chile. >> china. >> oh, china. i am also mentioning chile, who have built a really good private sector with public involvement. the u.s. is not set up as well to accept some of that investment. >> it is interesting. i am going to bring this up because i am an enormous nerd. you watch a company like elon musk's tesla.

elon musk came out with the idea for the hyperloop, an entirely new type of transportation infrastructure that would lower the time between san francisco to l.a. to about 30 minutes. what was fascinating to me is how people said that will never work, you cannot do that in this country, we cannot build anything this big. the politics would be too complicated. the reaction to that idea, whether you think it is crazy or not, was fascinating to me. there seems to be this attitude in the united states that we cannot do the big, new things. and this is the country that invented the big, new thing. as you look at all of this infrastructure investment, to what extent has the united states lost its ability to do those really large, important things? >> well, if you went out in the street and asked the american

people who is the biggest manufacturer in the world, oh, china. really? no, we are. who is the most efficient manufacturer in the world with a few specific exceptions? we are. where are people coming to do more manufacturing? us. there are all sorts of big, new things going on all the time. we have been fracking for 69 years. the ability to do horizontal fracking and all of that kind of stuff has made the cost of energy in the united states compared to europe -- which, by the way, is critical to the united states. europe is our largest import market. look at what we have done to drive the energy here down to a quarter of what it is. look at what we have done -- by the way, there is one bad thing.

we have taken 45% of the jobs out of the manufacturing business. did we get rid of -- supply chain management, now we are a country with people without jobs and we have jobs without people because we need really skilled folks to do this. we are a sophisticated -- we are the most reductive economy in the world. -- the most productive economy in the ruler -- world. a lot of our big ideas are going on right under our nose. but i do absolutely agree that people look at the united states and wonder now, can we do it or will we do it? that is a fundamental issue and that problem is not all about government or people around the world. it is all about our own citizens, who have gotten comfortable, do not like conflict. do not like risk. do not like to work too hard. i think we need to stop and

think with our children and our grandchildren, what are their futures? >> talk about the energy side of this. i read a rarities of good news that the united states could become one of if not the leading oil producer in the world in the coming decades. that is a conversation that i cannot imagine us having 20 years ago. it was very doom and gloom about energy in this country. now the energy picture is changing. how does that change the infrastructure piece and what you are going to do? >> five years ago, we would be hard-pressed to find that cover station, that the united states could become the world leader when it comes to energy production. that to your previous question. what we have been able to accomplish is an example of

those big ideas that the private sector has been producing in this country. i happen to believe that there is no limit to what americans are willing to try to achieve. i want to add one little note. i think it does factor into our ability to maintain this edge or this leadership position on energy production. it is the government role. when we look at complacency and conventional wisdom that america's best days are -- i should not say conventional wisdom, but some would say that america's best days are behind us. that is ridiculous. one of the reasons that that is ridiculous is because, at some point, the american people are going to rebel against the

government that is taxing too much, regulating too much, that is saying that we cannot do things that we could not do in the past. i think energy is a perfect example of that. so what we have been able to achieve on the energy front will allow us to maintain our economic leadership. but it is in doubt as well. you are starting to see new rules coming out on fracking or an effort to centralize the rule-making process. the states are doing a great job when it comes to maintaining public safety and health and ensuring that fracking is done in a responsible manner. we have politics at play when it comes to permitting lng exports. we have got to move past that. i think several people have indicated that this is not just a problem that has occurred, this competitiveness issue is not something that happened in the last five years.

for manufacturers, we have been regulated to death over the last 30 years. that has been in administrations republican and democrat. that is why every one of us up here are talking about regulatory reform, competitiveness. and the importance of regulatory reform when it comes to ensuring a 21st-century infrastructure program. energy is definitely a key. it can lead the way and show us the path forward to breaking through these political barriers in washington. >> i would jump in on that and say that we should be also thinking, and we do, of our regulatory capital cost system as an infrastructure. unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to be competing globally with other competitors who do not want to compete on that. they want to compete on the

higher value products and services they provide. we are being toppled by that. an example, we are talking about the energy and the potential of being energy weak and, for the first time, being energy strong, which has huge geopolitical security implications. obviously, what is happening in russia and other parts of the world. for every study that has ever been done, says that our product liability laws are a huge, hostile set of behaviors for innovation. and talk about where a lot of the next generation asks us where we put -- we have known examples of companies who will not be put here because of our product. one thing i wanted to say in referencing the fracking and all of that, this gets back to the public-private partnerships and the appropriate role for the government. the actual research and development that enabled horizontal drilling and fracking really started 30 years ago.

with investments in the department of energy. the exciting thing about that is if we look at the next iteration of that, there is work underway in our national laboratories to develop new processes to move into this fracking area, not having to use as much water, not having to use chemicals that give concern to the environmentalists. also, related to energy and manufacturing, to begin to develop synthetic rare earth materials, which will have huge implications for everything we are talking about here, manufacturing, competitiveness, the whole industry. >> i want everyone to start thinking of questions because i know your questions are going to be better than mine. we will go to some q&a as well. >> one last point about energy. in the cfo survey we did of over 100 cfos of foreign-based companies in the united states, energy ranked as one of the most positive reasons that these

companies are investing here, manufacturing here, using the u.s. as an export platform. what was interesting, if we did some cross tags and looked at the energy companies themselves, they are the most pessimistic because they are worried about regulation. they are worried about standardization and rules coming down the road that might interrupt their business plan that they know that they can be successful. so energy is one of our top competitive advantages. the energy companies themselves within my membership are concerned about the future. >> tom, you had a point too. >> i think it is absolutely appropriate to get around to energy, but i want to make one point about energy. there is only one absolutely predictable major crisis facing the united states that we all know is there and nobody wants to talk about. it is the ugly elephant in the room and everybody turns their back to pretend it is not there.

10 years from now, we will be in a situation where the federal government will have grown its budget from $3.8 trillion to $6 trillion. 66% for entitlements. 15% for interest on the debt. when we get finished, like 22% or the military and everything else that our government does at home and abroad. >> including infrastructure. >> everything has got to be in that. basically, the number gets huge and most of the money goes to two things. that is entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, military entitlements and so on. we were walking around for a long time and the reason we would not look at the elephant is we did not know what to do. people living longer and longer.

by the way, i like that. [laughter] people living longer and longer and the costs are getting greater and greater. what are we going to do? we found some things that we can do to help. 10 years from now, we will, if we do it right, if we do not let people stick their heads in the sand and pretend it is not something we have to deal with, we will develop the american energy system to the point where we can take a big bite out of that entitlement deal. and if we do not, we are really in trouble. >> i have to jump in and say that if you look at two sectors of our economy that do not have productivity, they are the education system and the health-care system. that tells you something right there. that we are not having systems that have productivity growth

and all of that as well. the solution to the entitlements, you can look around the world. a country like israel, very innovative in what they are doing. they decided they were going to increase the age before people could get their social security. >> we are already doing that. >> but we are still working on 1930 models of actuary tables, for the most part. that could immediately have a huge impact if we could get bipartisan agreement to increase that. >> i want to ask you all about congress, bipartisan agreements, and what this particular congress is capable of. i also want to make sure that we have a chance for people to ask westerns. i know we have some folks roaming the halls with microphones. i cannot see all of the folks over there, so if anybody is raising their hand, let me know if there are questions in the back. i do want to get everybody involved here as well. talk a little bit about this congress. everyone seems to be completely pessimistic about it. it is the ability to do anything, even the must-pass bills, because of the gridlock on capitol hill.

listening to you all, or you get the sense that this is a pressing problem, has to be dealt with, crucial for the future of the u.s. economy? what faith do you have that congress can rise to the occasion and do something this year even the gridlock and the political mess that we have seen and given the fact that there is an election coming up? i will put you on the hot seat. >> no problem. the perfect issue for the election coming up, because the public supports modernizing our infrastructure. i am an optimist. i know a lot of people are betting against congress taking any action this year. but the timing of the highway bill running out for right now, these are great issues that i think the public can get behind with strong leadership. >> what is your sense of this congress? is this a congress that can do stuff or is this a congress that will want to get home and campaign and stay in the

trenches? >> on that particular point, i am not as optimistic that they are going to do anything big. i think they will do some incremental things around the margin. i do think that we have a huge opportunity to be setting the stage for the next election. and to make the case that, ultimately, and tom alluded to this and i think jay did as well, we are talking about fundamental security issues as well. you talk about homeland security challenge. something happen, we know this, our transportation, our water. if we do not have water, we are going to have a week before people start dying without water. also presenting this is much more core to national security is very critical. i am not as optimistic. my colleagues are. >> are you still optimistic? >> i am optimistic. if you look at eight period of

time from now until the elections, there are some things we have to do or are getting set to do. everybody talks about lame-duck deals. every now and then, every three decades or something, we will have one that does a lot of stuff. but i really believe that there are three or four things that we will have a shot before they are finished. one is we will get a tax deal done. taking those away would be another huge tax increase on american industry, which would affect jobs. i do believe that we are absolutely crazy if we do not take advantage of having passed an immigration bill out of the senate. going back to do it again might be harder. and do something rational in the house and put it together.

let's get the three or four things we really need there. and we have a lot of heat on that. and we are going to put a lot more. >> you think immigration is doable this year? >> yes. >> really? >> yes. >> you are more optimistic than i am. lex i will give you three reasons. if the republicans do not do it, they should not bother to run a candidate in 2016. i mean, think about that. think about who the voters are. i just did that to get everybody's attention. >> everybody should immediately tweak that, -- tweet that, by the way. i want that to get out there. >> we are a nation without jobs and jobs without people. you need all of these people that we are training in the universities. the best universities in the world and we tell them to go home. when you do that, you send the work to where the people are.

the third reason we need to do this, and i will have another one, the bottom level of work is people who are seasoned workers. people in agriculture, you talked about health care. i will tell you a line of business we know something about. we just did a big thing last week and that is the retired people in nursing homes and retirement homes and all of that. i have been giving a lot of speeches and saying, if you do not want to do this immigration thing, you are going to go to the nursing home and pick up your mother in law and bring her home. >> right. if you do not have a labor force working and generating these entitlements, you do not have the ability to take care of -- >> america could sit down for a minute, put a chalkboard up and say, look, we have five or six things that are really a challenge. he have immigration because we have all of the issues we just talked about. we talked about entitlements, energy, infrastructure.

four or five of those things and put them together and reasonable people can look at it and say, you know, we can do that. all we have to do is decide to do it. if you look at what has gone on in the primaries, where people are now getting focused on trying to elect people of both parties that are going to go to washington and get something done. >> jay, where do you stand? >> for those in the audience who think tom is committed to this, this is a unified position in the business community. i do think that immigration reform does give you an idea of what can be accomplished. i, too, think it will get done this year. i think it will happen in the lame-duck session, the final piece of legislation. >> maybe i think that, too, but i am not -- >> what you think and what you say --

>> that would be the fallback. >> for manufacturers, immigration reform is imperative. tom mentioned the workforce issue that we are all experiencing. there are 600,000 jobs in manufacturing today. this immigration bill can go a long way towards helping us fill those positions. more importantly than that, the pathway is essential to manufacturers because we work very hard to build communities. if you take our present law that is current to its natural conclusion, we would be ripping apart communities and the fabric of this nation. manufacturers are committed to that. you are also committed to getting things done. we need to see some movement forward on trade. something every president since franklin roosevelt has had. it is essential to increasing our economic footprint on the world.

get to infrastructure and you have a different issue. the issue is if this thing goes belly up in july, even before the september expiration of the current bill -- i used to work for a governor. george allen in virginia. that governor was effective when it came to talking to members of congress about how structured funding was impacting our ability, as a state, to do our jobs. there were 50 governors, but the republicans and democrats were pounding on the doors of congress. when the american people are saying, look, you cannot hold up our state's ability to fix roads, to build new roads, to provide easier ways for us to get to work and back and, by the way, we really do care because we work for a living. we care about getting the goods that we are producing to our customers.

the american people want to send a strong message and i never doubt the ability of congress -- of governors to force congress to get things done. >> let me open it up to questions. we have a lot of people who want to jump in here. let me start to my left and then we will go to my right. right here in the middle. go ahead. if you could give us your name and organization as well. >> i am bob hirschi. i am a consultant. to what extent can you use the internet to try to get people together and get an economic consensus and get the money together to get things done? >> can you use the internet? i also throw into that social media in terms of mobilizing support for what it is you want to do. does that give you an added tool and how do you use that? why don't we start with nancy and work our way down? >> social media, without a doubt, is a very powerful tool. i think that you can absolutely build up -- and we have seen what has happened around the world -- build up some nice political support for that.

we also need political leaders willing to take some risk. we need the ability to -- you know, i raised the issue of public-private partnerships earlier because it is something that foreign-based companies are used to doing. getting more acceptance of that through social media as well. often times, politically, the fact that a foreign company is going to lease the toll road and operate the toll road is used as the reason to defeat the project itself. you know, a spanish company is going to come in and do it. not sure where that spanish company will take the road. >> they are not going to move it home. >> no, but we have seen the success of that before. anyone traveling during their commute on the hot lanes can thank an australian company for partnering with the commonwealth of virginia to do so. total media is a way to get people to understand it better. we also need government willing

to show some better leadership and not just look at what the polls are showing, not just look at what twitter is following. >> think about how fast those hot lanes go in virginia. that partnership works very well. >> we have another question over here. >> i am patrick sable with brookings. just a quick question. this berkeley -- historically, about 27% of infrastructure spending comes from the federal government. what can the federal government do to support those innovations, whether it is public-private partnerships, gas tax increases that we are seeing across the country? what can the state and local leaders do and what can your organizations do to help them push the ball forward? >> look at a project. the federal government can actually put as much as 50% in it. the state and the local communities would divide up the

other 50%. if you are the governor today, then you are the mayor and others in the community involved, you will be nervous on putting your money up on projects that you are not sure that the federal government is going to bring their money. they probably feel, we will get paid sooner or later. in the meantime, we are holding the bag. what are people doing? they are having their own meetings with the governors and local officials and they are saying, we are going to hold up on that. we will fix that bridge next year. it is already starting to happen. when that happens, people are laid off. poor people are not hired. -- or people are not hired. we have to understand that this is a partnership. not only a public-private partnership, but a partnership between levels of government. if one of us, one of the major players takes a walk, something

tells me you are not going to be able to finish the equation. you know more about that than i do. >> i was just going to jump in and add that i do think it goes both ways. we also see a lot of gridlock at the local and state level. for major infrastructure initiatives that would add value not only to these regions, but to the country at large. i was thinking of the example, we hear so much about the new i do not know if it is an anecdote or true, but if it is true, it is shocking. it is taking longer to get these permits to do the digging and things than it took to build the entire panama canal. we did not have a situation where every locality and state could block the national highway system that enables us to go from coast to coast in our transportation. i agree 100% with tom on the

investment issue. also, this permitting and regulation that gets us so bogged down, that is something that we need. it is really dangerous when you look at the electric grid. that is a case where a country like brazil, again, they have a national grid. of course, we do not and we saw the consequences of that with the devastating storms and things in new york. i think that this is where the governors can also come together and step up and do some big things that would impact the overall nation as well as their state and local issues as well. >> jay, you wanted to jump in? >> one of the things the states can do is continue to innovate. let's assume that we get a bill done before the money runs out this summer. we are going to be using the old system, the old model.

whether we increase the gas tax or not, it is not a long-term, sustainable solution to our problem. when you look at virginia, whether you like what they did or you do not like what they did, they were willing to think outside the box. other states are doing the same thing. those ideas need to come to washington to be considered whenever the next bill is accomplished. i am looking forward to tamara's leadership on this issue. there are a lot of other associations that would like to be a part of the dialogue for the future. we need to get over the hump right now and put everything on the able for future years. >> we have a question over here in the back. >> i am covering free transportation, supply chain, trade. i will see if i can wrap three things into one question. >> you are starting to be like a

white house correspondent. [laughter] >> everyone talks about educating the congress about the need for infrastructure. more and more, it seems like most lawmakers get it. at the end of the day, it is these other outside political factors that influence things. whether it is a gas tax increase or other funding, how do you get beyond that when you have a lot of movement for smaller government and no tax increases, how do you get to some funding mechanism when the ideologies are set in stone? and then if states are -- some states are taking on more investment on their own. they do not want to wait for the federal government. some states are advancing some money for port deepening. i guess the whole question of devolution -- is that a catch-22?

if the forward-thinking states, they start investing, and that is a good thing. on the other hand, are they sending a message to congress, they are going to do it so they do not have to? >> let's start with the ideology question. how do you deal with the rise of a very anti-spending political ideology on capitol hill? give us some thoughts on how you tackle that. >> it is all about education, educating the american people to register, to follow their votes with their members of congress, and to vote, and we do that at the nam. we not only work to educate our 12,000 members and the millions of employees that work for them, but also the general public on these issues. we have an obligation as a business community, as well as labor and others, to let folks know what is at stake here.

it gets very frustrating for manufacturers to have this skepticism coming from certain quarters of congress about a basic function of the united states government, and the way to overcome that is through elections. we have seen some of these primaries taking place where more reasonable heads are prevailing. i think there is an awareness now among the american people that extremism is not going to create solutions, that there needs to be two sides working together to get the job done. we are going to continue to work on that, we will continue to register people, to work with other associations like the chamber and our 240 council of manufacturing associations to get the word out. >> the question on states, and whether or not as the states

pick up some of the slack from the federal government, what message is that sending to people in washington? >> it is an encouraging message that the american system still works. and i believe that the comments that were made before is that the most powerful politicians in our system are mayors of challenging cities and governors. we will see a lot more of that over time. that simply sends a message to the politicians in washington, if you want to stay as relevant as you want to be, you better work really hard on the part of the system that you have control of. the commerce clause is argued both ways all the time, and i have a view on it, depending on what are the issues. >> this is not the only issue where we will see action at the state and local level and to teach lessons to washington.

it can be one among many. i see that happening across the board. if somebody mentioned that one of the characteristics of the public is looking for, for those that will vote in 2014 is, will the candidate work with the other side to get past this gridlock? what is disappointing to me is when you go past that top-line question in the poll, people want their candidate to work to get to their position, not necessarily just to work to actually compromise. it is definitely from the ground up, which is why we need leadership, to go beyond what people are thinking as a knee-jerk reaction and talk about and show action in trying to get consensus on important things like infrastructure. >> we are just about out of time, but, deborah, i will give you the last word on this. also on some of these questions that we've been talking about today. where do you think this conversation goes from here? >> i would add on the states, in

addition to governors and mayors, it is exciting to think what some of the regional associations of governors are doing, because increasingly you really cannot talking about states as much as economic regions, and so they how they come together, that is usually cross party lines. in terms of where we should go from here, we have a great coalition that has come together here. we know we have to move out in both the educational arena as well as building this business case for why infrastructure is at the heart of our nation's future competitiveness, job creation, innovation. and i think again the opportunity is now. it is not later. the extent to which we can begin to put together an action agenda of the near term, medium term, and long-term things we can do will be very powerful, and national infrastructure week, i hope it is the first of many. >> terrific. we have now reached a part of it where a producer will be screaming "wrap, wrap" in my ear.

thank you very much for talking about this. a fascinating conversation. and thank you all so much for listening to it. [applause] >> all right, ladies and gentlemen. we will take a 15-minute break so you can refill your coffee, water, juice, whatever it is you're doing. please keep an eye on the monitors. we will call you back in 15 minutes to hear from a great panel on international competitiveness. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> at the white house today resident obama awarded a medal of honor to a former seventhgeant, the

leading recipient of the honor. that sermon he will be on c-span tonight at 8:00 eastern. also in washington today, the housingthe federal finance agency said he thinks his agency will stay out of the debate that is happening on capitol hill. added it is the job of the administration and congress to determine such legislation. >> one topic that is not on fhfa's agenda, because it is not part of our statutory mandate, is housing finance reform legislation. there are many people who expected that i would start talking about gse reform legislation the minute i got to fhfa. regularlyaware and

expressing my belief that hip should never be viewed as a permanent condition or as a desirable end state and that housing finance reform is necessary. however, congress and the administration have the important job of deciding on housing finance reform legislation, not fhfa. instead, our task is to continue to fulfill our statutory execute our strategic plan, and to manage the president status -- the present status of fannie and freddie. >> all of director watt's

remarks are available at www.c-span.org. coming up tomorrow, live coverage of several events with administration officials. rice is interviewed at a women's foreign policy group event by judy woodruff. at two: 15, budget rector silvio burwell. -- sylvia is live tomorrow afternoon on c-span. a lot of time you would say, look, this is not for attribution, this for background. you can attribute it to a white house source or something like that. you cannot do that with live cameras. you cannot say i am just giving you this now for background, but this is not for publication. >> did you actually do that -- yeah, not the whole bridging

-- let me give you something background so you will know it is coming, something like that. >> quaint. made, istal mistake i i did not put the restriction we had at the state department, each it was not available for a live broadcast. it was available for use as part of the stories that you would produce because the briefing is not a news event. it is part of the way in which people gather information, put their stores together, pass to ces, to ar conference report. had 56 questions on what is universal health care? with that be 98%

56 questions in one briefing. said weas a column that should take her out for a beer to get her to answer questions about what universal health coverage when being. >> the life of a white house press secretary, sunday at 5:00 eastern this weekend on c-span3. the senate judiciary committee held a hearing today for u.s. the street court michael boggs who is currently a judge at the georgia appeals court. he has been criticized for his work while serving in the georgia legislature, including a vote to reinstate the confederate flag. mr. boggs' nomination was part of a deal with a georgia

republican senator to allow all judicial nominees from their state to get a hearing. >> [indiscernible] please be seated, and i invite each of you to provide an opening statement. you, chairman blumenthal, senator durbin, and senator franken. thank you for being here for calling this hearing and from hearing from us today. i would like to thank president obama for this nomination and for the faith he has put in me. now i would like to recognize several people here with me, both family and friends. first, two people who are simply the best thing that has ever happened to me and who have parent-teacher conference, a recital, or anything that has been important were seatedarents

right behind me. both ordained elders in united methodist church. also with me is one of my college roommates from brown university, tiffany thompson, and her mother, assist thompson, why refer to as my fairy godmother. and studybest friends group members from yale law school are part of a of friends that don't get together every year. we call ourselves law school ladies. becky and christie. and two of my compatriots for my .c.e in d my fiveave watching brothers and sisters, dr. andrea abrams, the honorable stacy abrams, richard lewis abrams, walter abrams, and dr.

abrams, as well as my grandmother. i would like to thank my u.s. attorney's office family, and my family from central united methodist church as well as the judge i clerk for. thank you. >> judge boggs? >> thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here today. i would like to thank chairman lay he or arranging for this meeting. i'm very proud and appreciative to the president for nominating me. i also want to thank senator isaacson and senator for the warm introduction and for the support throughout this process. i have with me today my thursday, years on although i'm not sure a trip to d.c. is what she had in mind for a gift.

she was the teacher of the year last year for our school district, and i get a quite a it of encouragement from her. i am honored to have two special guests from the judiciary from georgia to me. seated from behind me is hugh judge ofand the chief the court of appeals, the court on which i serve, and i am honored. these are both mentors of mine and very astute members of the judiciary and well-respected members of the judiciary in our state. i am honored to have two very good friends, richard hyde is here with me today, as well as a friend of now probably 30 years, from when i was first a legislative aide to congressman friendorgia, my good

pete robinson. my -- mys passed when father, when i was 21. my mother passed a couple years ago. everything i have ever coverage to his because of things they taught me in the time i had with them. i have two wonderful in-laws, my wife's parents, and i know they are proud and very excited for me on this occasion. to be here, mr. chairman, and i want to thank the many people who have helped me. i know many of them, including my staff, are whopping highway of webcast. i am appreciative of their support, and with that, i appreciate the opportunity to introduce my friends and family and welcome any questions. thank you, senator blumenthal, senator grassley, and also thanks to chairman leahy and the rest of the

members of committee for making this georgia today at the senate judiciary we really appreciate it. want to thank president obama for giving me the greatest honor that i have ever had in my 34 years of practicing law, this nomination. i want to thank senators chambliss and isaacson for their warm remarks and for their support throughout this process. there are several people i would like introduce today. first and foremost, sitting behind me, is my wife, my best friend, and the love of my life, bonnie coehhen.; she was a legal secretary for over 35 years from and despite working for lawyers, she agreed to marry me, and for that i will be forever grateful. i would not be sitting here today without her love and support, and we celebrate her 70th wedding anniversary next week. are two peoplete who are like family members to bonnie and me, judge stephanie and bob. we worked at the georgia

attorney general's office for many years preachy as been a mentor, friend, and a role model. the one whose career has been inspirational to me throughout my career. here today also with me are two young partners from a law firm. with and kevin have worked me on every major piece of litigation i've handled at the firm. they are two of the finest young lawyers it is been my privilege to work with during my legal career, and i would not be sitting here without support. also here, also for me, as well as judge boggs, is pete robinson, managing partner of our atlanta office, a former democratic majority leader in the state senate, and a longtime friend. and two former colleagues of mine who worked in washington are also here, and i appreciate your attendance. there are a lot of people watching on the web who are friends and colleagues of mine. i want to particularly mention one very special one. one of the most beloved georgia

underwood.norman he became my mentor and took me under his wing and he may need a better lawyer, and if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed by this august body, i will be privileged to say i got to practice law with norman underwood. finally, i would like to recognize my parents, didion and irving cohenn. they were born in brooklyn, children of immigrants, and children of the great depression, because of their family situation, they were unable to achieve the education that they provided for their only son. my father enlisted in the united states army during world war two. he was a disabled veteran, and he ran a small business. my mom was the secretary and worked in the home. together, because of their support and sacrifice, i was able to go to college and law school and lead a life that led me to this moment before you today.

i know if they were here they would be very proud. and with that, i welcome any of your questions. . cohen.k you, mr. >> thank you for holding this hearing and i'm honored to be here today answer your questions . i also want to thank senators chambliss and isaacson for their kind introductions and their support throughout this process. i would like to thank president obama for the great honor that he has given me in this nomination. it is something that i am very proud of and it is the highest honor that i can think of achieving. i have quite a crowd of family here today, and i will try to get through it quickly. my husband is here. he is an architect, the love of my life, and the person that is been there for me every day throughout this process. i also have with me my seven-year-old son. he is the first grader at a school in atlanta and has

thoroughly enjoyed his trip to d.c., especially the chance to discover the washington money but yesterday as it reopened. it has been a special trip for him. my mother is here. she is in her final year as a first grade teacher indicator, -- teacher in decatur, county georgia. my in-laws are here. both retired from public education, and i'm happy to have them here today. i have my brother, sister-in-law, niece and nephews, stephen julie, here from alabama. and a have my law partner daughter of one of my other law partners here for me today. i really have appreciated the and theof my law firm partners and the other staff

have given me. i am happy to have troll here today. thank you very much. >> thanks very much, ms. may. chairman, ranking member, i would like to thank the entire committee. thank you to senators champus and isaacson for the warm introduction as well as the by partisan efforts for this process. thank you also, president barack obama, for the honor of dissemination. i do have some special people with me. years,my husband of 13 fellow attorney brian ross, seated behind me. he is my rock and source of inspiration in all of my professional and personal endeavors. our two daughters, brianna and leighann. missmade the sacrifice to a day of school to attend. i thank them and their teachers for allowing them to do so with the understanding that they will be making up missed school work.

became teachers, i also have behind me my mother who is a retired public school teacher from right here, the d.c. public school system. also my siblings are present, my sister valerie and george otis. my father george cornwell also was a teacher. he passed away when i was eight. he is with me here in spirit as he had always has been, and today i have with me a person who has served as a father figure for my entire life. that is my uncle jim clark. i also have my two beautiful teenage nieces. i also would like to acknowledge my mother-in-law, shirley covington, who is also a retired public school teacher as well as principal. she could not make the trip to d.c. today, but supports me from her home in columbus. finally, i would like to much my colleague and my exceptional staff at the state court.

they're keeping things running through the while i am in washington. thank you. i welcome your questions. >> thank you very much to all of you for your opening statements and most important for your records of public service. i want to say again how important these hearings and this process is. i want to welcome chief justice youson, chief judge -- honor us by your presence today. we are sorry you had difficulty getting here, but you weren't mentioned in absentia by senators isakson and chambliss. like you, these individuals have performed a great deal of public service over the course of your careers are ready. the decisions we make here really will be to put you in a place where for many people seeking justice you will be the last person making a decision,

even though there may be a right of appeal to the court of appeals, you will be the source of justice for them. and so this decision for us is immensely important, and we will approach it i think with a close scrutiny that it deserves in every instance. i would like to begin, judge boggs, with some questions. if i look to the responses to the committee's questionnaire, i noted that there were no texts of remarks from a no speech drafts, notes, anything in writing of that kind. over the course of your very long career in public life, and you never deliver a prepared speech? did you never submit for example committee wheny you served in the state legislature in prepared remarks? >> thank you. it was not the practice of myself while i was serving for the four years in the general simply to speak regularly before committees. in fact the only occasions i had

to do that were on those that i had authored. i never spoke to any committee of the house or senate on any bill that i did not offer other i had toll that meant testify before the senate on a matter pretty if it is not the practice of the general assembly then and now that witnesses submit any written comments are testimony, and indeed that was not my practice. i typically spoke extraneous lee -- extemporaneously. >> on some of the videos i think that our of your service in the legislature, you seem to be reading from something. did you keep none of those texts? >> i was reading from the text of the bills i was presenting. i was not speaking about support, but asking legislators to support the bill. what i was reading from and what i always took to the well on this occasion was the text of the bill. >> and on the issue for example of women's reproductive rights,

i know that you spoke passionately about your views on the topic, on the rights of reproductive health care. you have stated her opposition to abortion. you repaired no remarks on any occasion that you delivered? i senator, to my knowledge, never given any public comments on my position on reproductive rights. i cosponsored some bills in the general assembly. to my knowledge i also voted on a couple of amendments on the floor of the house that i did not author. to my knowledge i've never given any speeches concerning reproductive rights. any of thosered bills. i had no role in drafting that legislation. >> and i notice also, as you well know, that on april 10, you supplemented your response is to the questionnaire to this committee with additional material. some of them dealing with the that may bel issues

of interest my colleagues. can you assure us there are no additional materials that are relevant to particular questions 12d of the questionnaire? >> i can assure that. i respectfully suggest that the effort that i went to to supply the information in my original questionnaire was quite exhaustive. i did all of the notable searches on the internet searches that were available. the newspapers that covered the area i served as a legislator are not searchable to the public in any form other than by review of the hard copies. in addition, computer applications and questionnaires of nominees who had prior legislative service and attempted to mirror what they had done with respect to their submissions. i did not note that any of those nominations had

ever submitted a listing of bills and cosponsored. as a matter of public record, and i could have easily provided it. with respect to question 12c, which asked for my public statements on matters of public policy, i do not view that bills hor, andid not aut i had nothing to draft with as be a part of my public status. i exhausted resources to provide this committee with everything that was available. that meant going to georgia public broadcasting um let the time i served in the legislature made videos of legislative sessions great information they was old,2001 to 2004 on servers that was not searchable, was in a fo rmat i was not searchable. it took me six weeks of almost daily contact to georgia public broadcasting to retrieve the videos i did supply. with respect to question 12c,

that the public speeches. i have been a judge on the trial court bench and appellate court for 10 years on advice of the state bar of georgia. i destroyed my files for my old law office which would've possibly contained references of when i spoke to certain civic organizations, dates to mind to whom i spoke, but because of information and media coverage of that was not, took five days, i traveled to under 50 miles to my hometown, and i reviewed 515 newspapers, roughly a thousand pages personally, and then hired somebody to review on the internal programming system of our daily newspaper their data in order to provide the additional submissions. i am appreciative for the opportunity to have done that. >> i appreciate that explanation. i do not need to remind you that some of my colleagues, particularly on the side of the

tole, have found the failure be completely forthcoming and frank with this committee in terms of providing materials as a reason to disqualify, and in fact, put in jeopardy denomination of a judicial nomination. i would urge you if there are any materials that are discernible and anyway that you provide them as quickly as possible. >> absolutely. >> let me go to some remarks and actions that you made in the course of your career, if i may. when you were a candidate for the georgia superior court, who spoke at a candidate forum. you told the audience at that time, "i am proud of my record, you do not have to guess where i stand. andpose same-sex marriage," you went on, " i have a record that tells you exactly what i stand for."

ben you're coauthorship indicative of how you will serve as a judge on the district court georgia, if you're confirmed? >> thank you, senator for the questions. i made the comment you refer to. later in that speech i refer to my respect for the separation of powers and the lawmaking authority that is vested in the legislature, and that judges should not be policy makers. i have maintained that position for the entirety of my career. i agree that comments that i made probably gave the wrong impression to the audience to whom i was speaking, particularly additional to the job i was seeking. i should have done a better job of delineating the roles of the different roles and a markedly different roles between a legislator and a judge. i was a legislator at the time, but i was seeking the office of judge. record, mythink my 10-year record of disposing of roughly 14,000 cases demonstrate unequivocally that i have never

allow personal views i may have on any issue to affect how i analyze issues or how i decide cases. >> have any of those cases doubled reproductive rights or a woman's right to choose? >> i think on my time on the georgia court of appeals i've dealt with one case on my panel. it was not the case i offered, but one case that dealt with on aia's current statute minor having to receive parental receive anorder to abortion. it was on appeal to a petition to a juvenile court. that, it is true that i have rarely dealt with issues of those constitutional magnitudes. >> so other than that one case, to know where you stand on the issue of reproductive rights or a woman's rights to choose from a yet to go back to your actions in the georgia state legislature? >> i do not necessarily agree. i think the best evidence of the type of judge i will be is the

record of the type of judge i have been. i don't think my legislative record is over a decade old is indicative of what type of judge i might be on the federal district court. i would point my record as a trial judge disposing of 14,000 cases dealing with civil cases and criminal cases, rolling for plaintiffs, defendants, running for the state,, ruling against the state. >> where do you stand on reproductive rights or a woman's right to choose? bemy personal opinion would inappropriate and a violation of the code of judicial conduct of georgia that i currently am bound by the state in a position on this matters. but i can state unequivocally that my personal position on that matter or any other issue is irrelevant to how i have decided cases for the past 10 years, how i have analyzed issues, and i committed to following the rule of law, the decisis.d of staree d

>> and the constitutional right to privacy, included? >> absolutely. >> you said that you are a strict constructionist. is that your general philosophy? >> i think at the time i made those comments, which was upon my transferring from the superior court to the court of appeals, i made those comments to a reporter. what i intended to convey was my fidelity to the rule of law and my fidelity to the limited role of a judge in our democracy and intended to contain my respect for the limited role of a judge. and that is to not decide cases based on public opinion, to not decide cases based on public clamor, but to decide cases based on the faithfulness to the rule of law and the doctor and -- doctrine of stare decisis. >> normally a strict constructionist is one looks very specifically and judges would say faithfully to the text and theonstitution

philosophy is to avoid going beyond what is actually written in the text of the constitution. is that a fair description? >> as my understanding, yes, sir, it is a form of constitutional interpretation and analysis. >> 2004 use of privacy is not "in the context or in the text of the constitution." >> i'm not familiar with having said that, senator. i'm happy to respond later if i can find out where that quotation might've come from. i am not familiar with having said that. it in 2004. stated limited your chance to explain now. if the right of privacy is not specifically dial-in needed were described in the text of the constitution, is it still equally valid as a rule of law? >> yes, sir, i believe the easy answer to that question is that i would ace every decision on

rights of privacy, fundamental rights, and use a constitutional interpretation model that is edents of the 11th circuit. -- notou would now allow allow your view of the interfereon would with any way with the right to private individuals that would come before you? >> absolutely not, senator. >> let me ask you about another part of your record. he supported legislation that would require doctors to report the number of abortions they perform. would you tell us why you supported that legislation? don't you think it was ill-advised? >> senator, let me respond this way. the legislation you refer to was an amendment eight on the for the house of representatives.

it was not an amendment that i drafted. it was not an amendment i was familiar with. it came up on the floor of the house in the routine of handling the business of legislature for that day. i supported measures like that and including that because those issues were very important to the people that i represented. my constituents as a state that is later were 38,000 citizens in one county in southeast georgia for the first two years i served. the district grew a little larger than that. but that district is a very conservative and a very conservative and very pro-life constituency. obligationit was the of a legislator to vote come listen to, and for the will of the constituency. those issues were very important to my constituents, and that is why supported that amendment. >> that amendment came within a few years after and before attacks on doctors who provided abortions or visits. would you agree with me that it was a mistake to support the kind of amendment?

>> in light of what i subsequently learned, yes, sir, i do not think it would be appropriate to be listing the names of doctors that perform abortions within what was then the georgia patient right to know act, which dealt predominantly with litigation that doctors have been involved with and the ability of patients to see that information. >> thank you. my time has expired. and i would turn to the ranking member grassley. it might surprise you, but i'm going to ask you a lot of questions, and i am going to ask similar questions to what you did. and i hope the rest of you do not feel let out. [laughter] years as -- past 10 -- as anjudge boggs, elected state court judge.

in this election could you run under any particular party? >> no, sir. electeds judges are nonpartisan at the level i ran. been --ur role has >> and charlie. >> 2001, and you said you were elected as a democrat to the georgia general assembly, right? >> that is right. >> you been criticized by some groups were some of the policy positions you took as a legislator. for instance, as a legislator united pro-life voting record, you supported traditional marriage. i have asked you a couple questions. if i'm going to read something that you said -- first i will read something you said during senate resolution 595. this resolution recognizes marriage as the union between a man and a woman in a statement on the resolution you said it is

my opinion both as a christian and as a lawyer and as a member of this house, and as a member of this house is our opportunity to stand up in support of this resolution." so please explain what you meant by the statement. meant that myrly personal opinion was at the time over a decade ago that i was in support of the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. my position on that, senator, may or may not have changed since that time, as many peoples have over the last decade. moreover, my position on that as reflected by those personal comments in 2004 have never had any import whatsoever in how i decided raises or how i analyze issues, both as a trial court judge and as an appellate court judge. >> is it fair to say that your christian faith informs her policy positions as a legislator? >> yes, sir. >> by contrast, how does your christian faith affect you in

your decision-making assistance as a judge -- decision-making processes as a judge? >> it has never, senator. >> is there anything in your personal views that would make it impossible for you to apply the laws of a federal judge even if you disagree with it? >> no, sir. >> you've also said i was proud to represent you, i tried to base all my decisions on common sense conservative values that are based on the fact that i was raised in a christian home and that has given me true family values. again, do you hold any personal or religious views that make it impossible for you to apply the law as a federal judge even if you personally disagreed with it? >> absolutely not, senator. >> further, as i mentioned, you been criticized for your legislative record with respect

to a portion during her time in the legislature. cosponsored bills that would help encourage women to encourage adoption and a bill that required minors to accompany -- to be accompanied by parent or guardian before getting an abortion. there may be some concern that her personal views on abortion may influence your ability to follow president as a judge. what is your commitment to following that? i think you have made that very clear, i don't think you have to answer that. what you seecribe to be the differences in responsibility as a policymaker regarding the topic of abortion. i think you have made that very clear in your answer to senator blumenthal. views regarding abortion, religion, or otherwise that would make you unable to discharge her duties faithfully as the u.s. district judge? >> no, sir, i do not. times there been any

where you decided a case based on your policy preferences or desired outcome rather than following the law or applicable president -- precedent? >> that has never happened. you have my commitment that will never happen. >> you have been involved in litigation in georgia, voter id law. have three questions in regard to that. can you describe who you're representing in these cases and how you came to be involved in them? >> based on my experience in the georgia attorney general's office which was over 13 years, when i went into private the attorney general hired me to represent the state in a variety of high-profile litigation. the a very from defending university of georgia's affirmative action program to defending a redistricting plan

passed by a democratic assembly to defend the photo id law. in all of those cases, i was never involved in the enactment of many of those policies or legislation. i never was a lobbyist for any group either advocating for or against the legislation. i was hired just like any other lawyer is hired and that is to represent their client and advocate their position in court. >> if you were confirmed, how would your experience with voter id laws influenced your decision-making process as a judge if the voter id case were to come before you? >> it wouldn't make any -- it would implicate my decision-making at all. i would be bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court which in this case is the crawford versus marion county case and the 11th search -- circuit court of appeals in resolving that issue. >> some have claimed that voter id laws generally, these would be like laws you defended, exist

"for no other reason than to deny african-americans the right to vote." do you agree with that statement? >> i think the case law in this area has come down depending on the state it was brought in in different ways. in georgia, the evidence that was presented in our case do not leave the court to conclude that it was against the right to vote. because of different factual circumstances, in other states they were presented in different statutes and different state constitutional provisions. the decision came out differently. involving any case challenge to a photo id law, it depends on the facts that are presented and the specific statute that is being reviewed. >> uart he made reference to an affirmative action case. regents,ersus board of

a class of students that were denied the challenge of university system awarding points to africans based on diversity. you defended that an 11th circuit found that the system was not narrowly tailored and hence unconstitutional. tell us about your case and who you representing. >> i was representing the board of regents at the university of georgia. at that time, that was before so supreme court's decision the university of georgia was implementing a points program very much like the university of michigan was in there under credit -- undergraduate institution. both cases were appealed at the same time. the michigan case got to the u.s. supreme court. our case was settled before that time. >> if confirmed, this ruling will be binding precendent. what assurances can you give

this committee that you will follow it and any other precedent? >> as a district judge, in article three judge, i am bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court. in the issue of part of action -- affirmative action, that would be the fisher case and any other decision that might be issued. >> ms. abrams. -- mr. abrams. --i am going to quote scalia "the risk of assessing standards is that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has come and they did in one's own views." do you believe that -- forget that she said that. think of the concept. judge scaliathe but i don't want him to be the focal point. do believe judges should

consider overhauling standards when interpreting the constitution? >> thank you, senator. i believe that a judge, particularly a district court judge, is bound by the court of law, down by precedent. in my case if i were to be fortunate to be confirmed, it would be the precedent of the supreme court and that would guide my decision. >> you think it is ever appropriate for federal judge to incorporate his or her own views when interpreting the constitution? >> no, senator. >> because there was a split in , a majority ofou the standing committee on the judiciary rated u.s. qualified. a minority found the opposite. the attachments you provided in response to questions to your senate questionnaire provided very well of examples of legal writing. is there anything further you

could share with the committee to easily doubt that may exist about whether your experiences after paired you for a lifetime appointment? >> thank you. i have practiced both in federal court civil law as well as criminal law. in that capacity, i have had a strong motion to practice both written and oral. and appellate practice. almost four years of the u.s. attorney office, i have handled criminal cases from their inception including trial both jury trials and the equivalent of bench trials. s also handle my own habea motions and have argued before the 11th circuit court of appeals. after graduating from yield law school, i served as a clerk to district judge and i believe that first-hand experience has understand what the day-to-day obligations of a district court judge. wallace understand there will in fact be a steep learning curve, i have spoken to all of the judges of the middle district of

georgia who i will work with if i am so fortunate to be confirmed. i know they will support me in getting up to speed and i think my ability to study -- i have studied all the rules and my will help me do my duty as a district court judge if i am confirmed. >> i am going to yield. i will assume you two will not -- >> thank you, senator grassley. just for the information of my colleagues, we are scheduled to have a vote at 11:10 a.m. i will turn the gavel over to senator franken when that happens and he and i will trade places and will continue the hearing. i am going to turn to senator durbin. before i do, judge boggs, you mentioned a case that was decided while you were a judge, perhaps on the georgia appellate court.

i am not aware that case. can you provide the name in the opinion if there was one to the committee? but whenhave misspoken i was referring to was the political notification law has sincehe law in georgia 1987, before i became a legislator. my actions in the general assembly between 2001 and 2004, to amend that bill in two specific ways was to amend current statute. the case you are referring to would be the one that was on my panel of the court of appeals. absolutely. >> he could provide the name in the opinion if there was one and any other details of that case. >> certainly. >> i'm going to submit questions in writing. >> we will have the record -- the record will stay open for all of us for a week after this hearing to submit questions in writing but that one in particular, if you could respond i would appreciate it. senator durbin.

>> thank you. let me say to all nominees -- thank you for being here today and a special thanks should be given to your two senators. who have worked very hard for ve told eachand ha and every one of us about your nominations. they think very highly of you. that commands all of you to our positive consideration. i do have a few questions. aske boggs, i would like to you because you appear to have served in the georgia general assembly in a very controversial moment when your state was debating its state flag. the question was whether or not the flag would be changed and no longer display the confederate battle symbol. you were embroiled in that debate. i ask you this question. do you believe that confederate flag issue had anything to do with the issue of race?

inwhen that flag was passed 1956, there was no legislative history. i was in a flag historian nor am i now. looking back on that issue and preparing for today, i know that some argue that race, particularly it was passed in reaction to the brown decision from the u.s. supreme court in 1956, i have no reason to dispute that. there are arguments on the other side as to what the motivation was for the bill originally. >> beyond the motivation for the original form of the flag, when you were serving in the general simply end the debate was and i believe overwhelmingly the african-american legislators opposed that symbol in the flag, did that lead you to believe that debate had anything to do with the issue of race? >> yes, sir. >> what was your feeling? >> i was offended by the flag. at the time that i made that a

vote in 2001, i was a freshman legislator. i was in my 17th day of service. of theery respectful opinions of the majority of the african-american community in my state had towards that flag. it was not only a symbol of a reminder of the civil war and the horrific tragedy in a horrible time in american history. a reminder of the institution of slavery. it was also more predominately than more contemporary uses of that flag by organizations that a spout over racism. i found that one of the most challenging things of being a legislator was deciding when to vote with my constituents and went to vote the will of myself. it was something i know other legislators the trouble with -- struggle with. the overwhelming majority of the constituents in my one county that i represented which likewise contain a minority

population that was not ignorant of, overwhelmingly, those constituents wanted georgians the opportunity to vote on whether to change the flag. that is why i cast the vote the way i did. i'm glad the flag was changed. it reflected something that i thought georgia could be better with. >> since you understood that the debate in your time dealt with issues that at least brought up echoes of race problems and slavery, let me ask you this. when you compromise design was proposed in 2003 that remove the confederate x that echoed the confederate stars and bars flag, this design was supported by african-american democrats and you voted against it. why? >> yes, sir. for the same reasons. the overwhelming majority of my constituents wanted a choice between the 56 flag and the current flag. between the vote

in my original vote was another opportunity to vote for a referendum on the flag and i voted for that. that would've afforded georgians an opportunity to vote. however, i read her a -- reit erate, looking back on that vote at the time i cast that vote, it was a very difficult decision to decide whether to vote my conscience which was reflective of the will of people in my committee -- the will of the constituents in my community or vote my own constants -- my own conscience. i couldn't be more respectful of the people that wanted that flag changed and i am glad it did change. >> judge boggs, each year for over 10 years, congressman from organizes john lewis a civil rights pilgrimage inviting members of both political parties to come down and personally witness some of the scenes of civil rights struggles of the 1960's.

i was honored to be invited one year and as fate would have it walked over the bridge with congressman lewis in the early morning sunday hours. he pointed out the spot where he was beaten unconscious and club down by troopers on that march. me there are many people that are knowledged as heroes and i should not be one of them. was one in particular who hardly ever gets crer gean creds name was frank johnson. frank johnson was a u.s. federal district court judge, and position that you five aspire to. the middle district of alabama. he not only ruled that the puttingthat allowed rosa parks on the back of the bus was wrong, he went on to rule that that march would be allowed.

for that, his mother's home was firearm -- firebombed. he was invited away from polite society but became an icon to many of us in terms of courage on the bench. i understand the role of the legislator and politician. trying to measure your constituents and what they want against what you believe is right. sometimes sadly they come in conflict. obviously, and judge johnson decided sitting on the federal court that even though he would be ostracized, he would do what he thought was right. i have asked you a lot of questions about when you were state representative and you said you reflected how your people felt. now, how do you view the issue of race when you have an opportunity to serve on the district court here? >> thank you for the question. first, let me say of the utmost respect for congress and lewis. i know him and i respect his career.

while i know he might be critical of me during this process, i don't take any affront to that. i deserve the criticism based on that vote. i have nothing but the utmost respect for congressman lewis and for all of those, including my colleague that sits behind me, who fought for three years of decades of racism and oppression and became the second juvenile court after -- african-american juvenile court judge in my state. my boat was never meant to be disrespectful. it was never intended to fail to owledge -- fail to acknowledge the struggle that succeeded in the quality. my boat was never intended to reflect that -- vote was never intended to reflect that. i believe everyone that comes before me should be treated equally. i believe my record as a judge

reflects my faithfulness to that. i don't think anyone can disprove if someone is accusing someone of being a racist. how do you disprove that? i think the best evidence i would have that the people that know me best don't believe that vote, hadt after that a challenge in the democratic primary in every african-american elected official in my city supported me. they grew up with me and i went to school with them or their children. they know me. they know that a vote was not indicative. in that election, i received 90% of the vote to be returned to the general assembly for second term. the same people overwhelm only the supported me with 80% of the vote when i ran for superior court judge. i think that is the best evidence. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator durbin.

senator lee. >> thank you for all of you. ms. abrams, let's start with you. i see most of your practice has been in civil litigation, is that right? >> yes. goodat is giving you a flavor for both of them which will be important components of your caseload should you be confirmed. caseyou approach a civil now, a lot of k civil cases are decided on motions and when they are not is stilln those, it usually a motion that is made at some point or another. when you review a dispositive motion whether it is a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, do you think -- it is

appropriate for a judge to defer on the side of granting or denying a dispositive motion? there are some judges that occasionally will say, at least privately, i would rather err on the side of giving the plaintiff his or her day in court, a trial. do you lean in either direction? is it just as bad to grant a dispositive motion where it is not wanted as it is to deny one where it is? is either one worse than the other? >> i don't believe that one is either worse than the other or that it would be appropriate for me to hold a belief. i think that every case that comes before me if i am confirmed should get the same treatment and that is a fair and impartial application of the law to the facts of that particular case. >> ok.

you wouldn't have any predilection any way or another? based on the issues brought before you? >> yes. >> i sometimes see a dangerous tendency in the courts in that sometimes we could end up with trial by attrition where it is easier to deny a motion for summary judgment than it is to grant one in some ways. some ways it involves less risk. you don't have to write a lengthy opinion or do and i want. - -or- or deny one. it is not immediately appealable so it is easier to say i will deny this one and see what happens on appeal. would you tend to agree? >> i think that certainly does happen. i fortunately was trained by a judge who believed that we had to get it right. when i was a clerk, i did in fact deny a number of motions

that ended cases but that was because the applicable law dictated that that was how a case should be handled. i hope that i learned enough from the judge and that i would in fact fairly and impartially apply the law to the fact of each case as a comes up warming. >> he is still on the bench right? he is still available? >> he certainly is. >> judge ross, you are already a judge. do you agree with what ms. abrams has said or disagree? >> i agree with ms. abrams that i would have no predilection either way. also, i can say by having served as a state court judge, i have never ruled on a motion for summary judgment just at the point of being cautious. i have taken longer to rule on some of them than on other issues because like ms. abrams said, i wanted to get it right. -- i'mnate enough

fortunate enough to say that none of the rulings i have rendered on motions of summary judgment have gotten reversed with the exception of one portion of one ruling based on attorneys fees and i'd agreed that i should have analyzed it slightly differently. particularave any judicial philosophy? how would you describe how you describe your a little -- philosophy? >> my philosophy would be to apply the law fairly and equally to all people that would -- if i am confirmed as a district court judge -- that would appear economy. i think it is very important for judges to get it right. that means following the applicable supreme court and the circuit precedent to letter and not allowing my own personal opinions to get in the way of fair, decisive and applying applicae law. i think it is important for judges to treat both the parties and the attorneys with respect and listen to all sides to an

agument to make sure that as judge i would understand the arguments of the parties. when issuing orders or ruling on specific issues, i believe it is very important for a judge to be clear and let the parties know exactly what the ruling is so they can imply that to the rest of the case. >> thank you. judge boggs, you commented a few youres ago about inclination as a legislator to try to figure out what your andtituents would prefer that it sometimes but legislator in a difficult position. does any of that apply to you as a judge either as a state judge or would it apply to you as a federal judge if you were confirmed? >> no, it doesn't apply. that is a very comforting part about being a judge. i think i'm more suited to be a judge that i was a legislator. there was a lot of comfort in

the rule of law. you can look good in the rope. i am confident not. the gauging of public sentiment on any issue as a legislator is always difficult. the political implications of votes are difficult. the considerations that partisan politicians have to make a in and day out are difficult decisions. the decisions judges make are likewise difficult, but the fortunate part about the rule of law is that you don't stick your finger in the wind every time you decide a case to decide what is popular, what is public will, and what is the general direction of the public on this issue. i am very comforted in knowing if you are faithful to the rule of law, if you are faithful to applying precedent to every case, and you don't interject your personal opinions, while it is true you may make -- you might make unpopular decisions, popularity is not what the justice system will do. >> will not apply even if you're

asked to make a ruling that is going to be strongly against the public will? mightnot just that anit not be the most popular ruling but a ruling that may seem fair and on harsh -- unfair and harsh? perhaps a very sympathetically did or defendant -- plaintiff or defendant? >> i think judges that are faithful to law will make unpopular decisions on a regular basis. the comforting part about being a judge is that the law should prevail in each and every case. sympathy for the party, empathy for the party has no role. sexual orientation of the party has no role in deciding how you can issue a decision. when much more difficult you are a partisan legislator to do with those issues because i think most of you all have the districts in your states and i did as a legislator where your entirety of your constituency rarely agree on everything.

fortunately as a judge, do not concerned with those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. klobuator clover charm -- char? >> thank you to all the nominees. day and ivery special see you have a lot of happy family members. i was going to ask some questions to mr. boggs. i know you were a judge for how long? >> 10 years now. >> obviously, there is a lot of understandable questions about the positions that you took as a candidate and in the legislature on choice and civil rights and marriage equality. did you rule in any those cases when you were a judge? cases involving those issues? >> as a trial court judge in georgia's highest level of trial court, didn't have jurisdiction to rule on constitutional questions.

as a judge in the intermediate appellate court for the last two and half years, we of limited constitutional jurisdiction specifically we only deal with constitution is applied and whether it was applied in an unconstitutional fashion. jurisdiction and confidential cases present with the supreme court. >> can you talk about your overall judicial philosophy? how your personal views have shaped that philosophy? >> i don't know if my personal views have shaved my philosophy. my experiential views has shaped my philosophy. i try to emulate characteristics that i see in other judges that i value. my general judicial philosophy is that judges should be faithful to the law. they should understand the limited role of the judiciary and they should not be policymakers. in addition, i think it is imperative that judges are continually treating every party that appears in front of them equally before the law.

that build public confidence and a fair and impartial judiciary system which i think is very important. >> in your opinion, how strongly should judges themselves to the doctrine? >> i think the doctrine should bind all judges. inbound me as a trial court judge. inbound me to the supreme court of georgia. i think as an appellate court judge, i am bound by the decisions of the supreme court of georgia. i would be bound and follow the decisions of the supreme court, even on those issues that you discussed. >> the supreme court rule of nearly 50 years ago is about privacy rights and access to contraception. do you view these cases as federal law? >> i do and i would follow that precedent. >> i am concerned about this amendment. i know there is a lot of background and have read it all but one of the things that really stuck out to me as someone who was a former prosecutor dealing with public

safety issues was the amendment you supported in the georgia state legislature. i think senator blumenthal asked about this. i have some or questions. it would've required posting on the internet about the number of medical procedures that doctors have performed having to do with terminating a pregnancy. there can clearly be public safety implications for these doctors if you put all this detailed information about them online. i think you can see in other areas as well and i think we have certainly seen lives being taken from these doctors that terminate pregnancies. we don't put this kind of information online for other procedures and other medical areas. my first question is if your views on this issue are still the same? >> i would be hesitant to give you my views on that issue. as much as that may come before me as a judge, but i will tell you that was a floor amendment. i didn't have any idea it it was coming.