will not help your bottom line if everyone else is using it. that is part of the function of government. part of the function of government is to educate the population so you have a well-trained work or spirit there are certain common goods air maintaining clean and water and making sure if you have capital markets that they are well regulated so they are trustworth and investors know that they are investing in a stock that they are not being cheated. there are a host of functions the government has to play. it drives innovation typically is not what happened and government. it is what is happening in companies. what we found in the united states is that companies, once they have got the basic role and -- rule and platform, they are

able to create value and innovation and cultures that encourage growth, and i think african entrepreneurs are going fore the trendsetters determining how societies think about themselves and ultimately aboutvernments think these issues. the truth of the matter is that if you have big successful companies, where you have and eighturship middle class and practices have been established in terms of fair deals and treating your workers properly and extending contractorsto small and promoting women and making sure that women are paid like , and suddenly what happens

is is is is create new norms -- is businesses create new norms and sensibilities, and governments oftentimes will respond. would like to i see more and more of is partnerships between american businesses, between african businesses. some of the incredible cultures of some of our u.s. businesses that do a really good job promoting people and maintaining america -- maintaining a meritocracy and treating women equally and treating people of different faiths, races, sexually orientation equally and making sure there are typical norms of how you deal with able in contracts and respect legal constraints -- all those things i think can then take root in a

country like zimbabwe and hopefully governments are encouraging that. they recognize that is how the world as a whole is increasingly moving in that direction. an over time, you will see africa that is driven by individual entrepreneurs and private organizations, and governments will be responsive to their demands. so i think the one thing i want to make sure people understand is it is not an either-or issue. governments have a critical role to play. the markets have a critical role to play. nonprofit organizations have a critical role to play. but the goal and the orientation constantly should be how do we empower individuals to work together.

and if we are empowering young people like you across africa, if we have a 21-year-old who has already started three businesses, we got to figure out how to invest in him, how to make it easier for him to succeed. if you succeed, you are then going to be hiring a bunch of people. they in turn will succeed. and that has been the recipe for growth in the 20th century and the 21st century. i am confident that africa is well on its way. america wants to make sure we are hopeful and that process. i'm sure the u.s. companies that are here, that is their goal as well. we are interested in africa because we know that if africa thrives and it succeeds and if you have got a bunch of entrepreneurs, they are going to need supplies from us, maybe, or they may supply us with outstanding products. they're going to have a growing middle class that wants to buy

or applications from us. in turn, they may provide us new services and we can be the distributor for something that is invented in africa, and all of us grow at the same time. that is our goal, and i am confident we can make it happen. i want to thank you for doing a great job moderating. i want to thank all the leaders here, not only of government, but also for businesses for it is abating. there has been great energy, enthusiasm. i know a lot of business has gotten done. if any of you are interested in investing in this young pan, let us know. i do, guys. appreciated. thank you so much. [applause] ♪ bankwould like to build a

that makes a difference. >> i want to create some funding company that would take our african filmmakers and produced something that is worth a worldwide audience. >> [indiscernible] >> i would like to start a finance company. to specialize in shale gas in nigeria. >> i would like to combine my tools to create an online business. i would like to see african art go international. >> so i would teach people about these, how to be good to the environment. >> i want to be able to assist people from different backgrounds who are not able to afford it. >> we had people in improving

and [indiscernible] >> my dream is to incorporate my art to having galleries that ship electronic versions of my art. -- hw to create autographs olographs into the sky. ♪ >> the future is very bright. for over 35 years c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering coverage of the house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the

cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, or follow us on twitter. >> congress on a summer break. members are on twitter talking about their activities during the august recess. it was great -- talking to centerline machine employees today. great to meet you folks. austin scott of georgia writing this morning i towards cemex southeast plant. they are the only operating cement plant in georgia. another tweaking, it is lunch time. have you voted yet? inate and house incumbents missouri, kansas, michigan, and washington state are trying to be back challengers today. in kansas senator pat roberts races milton wolf a radiologist

and the second cousin of barack obama. in michigan carl levin is not seeking reelection, and the race is considered competitive. in missouri, five of the state's eight house numbers face primary challenges. in washington, voters considering 12 candidates fighting to replace doc hastings. former governor sarah palin headlined a summit in denver. she called on congress to impeach the president. here's a portion of her comments. thesese days you hear politicians say obama is an imperial president and ignores court orders and achieves law by fee at and refuses -- and refuses to enforce laws. what are you going to do about it?

bluff.all their i am calling their bluff because we need a little less talk and a lot more action. there's only one remedy for president who emits high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is impeachment. it is the i-word. e speechan watch thi tonight at 8:00 eastern. other speakers are including jenny beth martin. the u.s. house voted along party lines to sue president obama over the implementation of the health care law. two scholars recently debated the wisdom of that effort. toobin moderated the discussion. it is hosted by the aspen

institute. >> we had justices kennedy and breyer, and my wife did the introductions. ellen is now serving as the director of art in embassies for the state department, and since the format of the program is a highlys barred debate on controversial subjects, i thought i should say a word about why i think this subject is so important. was our constitution written, our founders were concerned about keeping the federal government small and avoiding anything that resembled the monarchy that they had fought against. congress was to check the power of the executive. the courts were to check the power of both. and juries were to check the power of all three. but today congress and the executive branch hardly resemble

anything our founders could have imagined. congress has been incapable of asking any legislation or confirming presidential appointments. it spends most of its time raising money or investigating the executive ranch, and is thought to be doing a good job by less than 10% of americans. the executive branch consists of hundreds of department and agencies that run our country on a day-to-day basis. veryongress created and clearly was entrusted to create policy. members of congress are now claiming the present is exceeding his constitutional authority by trying to do some things around the edges with immigration, minimum wages, marriage equality, climate change, and filling the vacancies of government positions that make our country run. so the question before us is

whether the constitutional claims of abuse of executive andr are exaggerated whether we really should be concerned about whoever sits in the white house running roughshod over the separation of powers doctrine. the highly respected former supreme court justice calling for six constitutional amendments to deal with the problems of campaign finance, gun control, and redistricting it is no longer heresy to suggest our constitution may need revision. to debate the issue, we are honored to have charles ogletree, who taught president obama everything he knows. [laughter] on the right, miguel estrada,

who argued and in part won, in part lost the decision that obama exceeded his authority and making appointments to the national labor relations board. our moderator is a new york staff writer in one of the country's foremost publications, jeffrey toobin. let the debate begin. [applause] >> thank you. hello, everyone. ok, speaker boehner says the house is going to sue the president. can the house sue the president.

back up. [laughter] it would be a very difficult lawsuit to frame because of a number of legal doctrines having to do with the competence of the courts. mostly i think the house is going to overcome a number of cases from the supreme court that hold that congressmen and senators do not have the standing to bring claims in court. they are trying to get around that by having a vote in the house and saying this is not the usual case in which someone who lost out in the legislative process is coming in. but it is really the institution. that raises a number of issues

about the extent to which the institution can claim the type of legal injury the law recognizes. usually people who come into court are claiming you took my money, you took my child. that's what the law calls an injury in fact. that is usually what is needed. the suit contemplated is the nature of you are failing to comply with the affordable care act, popularly known by those who love it as obamacare. it is not obvious how the members of the current house are injured by the president's failure to comply with the law. it is also likely at least some of them are people who are members of the public who are injured by these things and could sue. my view would be it is a challenging case for the house to bring, even if they do have a vote.

if i had to bet on a court upholding the standing of the house, i would not give them more than 50-50. >> what do you think? can the speaker, the house, sue the president? >> can you repeat the question ? no, my answer is surprising. i would say yes. they have sued the president over and over again. i don't think they will be successful. i think he is attempting to make an important case. i think president obama is not afraid of it. he is suing me for what? he is doing his job. that is the debate between him and the congress. reality is the president has already been stung by the supreme court's recent decision. they left a little window for

him to do what he needs to do. i think everybody knows the president has been supporting this idea of executive power because he has been stopped by republicans for every single thing he wants to do. first term, we heard the senator from kentucky say we are going to make him a one-term president. he is wrong. i wish he could do better. there's a lot of things i would like to see he has not done. it will be in to see whether he uses executive power for a lot of other things, not just to disagree with the house, but because he has an enormous amount of power. >> are you saying the house will have standing? they will just lose on the merits? >> i think the president will still have executive power.

i'm not sure he is going to be successful with congressman boehner. but people are saying let's get something done. somebody needs to do something. how can you not support anything for us in the last six years? >> i think there is always a very attractive claim by everybody who wants to do what he thinks is wise to say the other side is not letting me. it is worth it to go back to 1789. the people who wrote the constitution said the government is best that governs the least. there was some sense for them, because in order for laws to be changed and made, the assumption was there has to be consensus as to what we are doing.

what is happening here is there is a do-nothing congress. everybody says that when congress does not go their way. what you effectively have is a country that on fundamental questions of policy is divided 50-50, as reflected in the white house and the congress. unless they can come to an agreement as to how to meet in the middle -- they keep insisting to have 99% of their way -- nothing is going to get done. that is in the system to review can't have change unless you come to an agreement. the minority was intended to have the ability to slow things down until there is consensus. >> let me talk about a specific. as the planned lawsuit is being discussed, the core claim is going to be the affordable care

act says the employer mandate takes place and is supposed to kick in on a certain day. this administration delayed the day. we all know how the republicans feel about obamacare. their claim is the food in this restaurant is terrible and the portions are too small. [laughter] do they have a point that the law says there is the date? the president changed it. how can he do that? >> i had the flipside of the reaction that professor ogletree had. it is difficult for the house to get standing. if they manage to get standing, they most likely would win if

the court wants to consider them on the merit. the president says, i will not do that. that is usually unlawful. things of that nature usually get set aside by the supreme court all the time. two months ago, the supreme court slapped down the epa where the statute said you shall regulate if the polluter issues more than 100 tons per annum. the agency says, that is not reasonable. the court said, you cannot do that. if the congress says you have to do it on these terms, you can't put it to the side. on your point as to whether this is terrible food and we want more of it -- the people should

be entitled to experience the laws of the country as passed by the representatives. if that causes untoward effects or people don't like them, that is why we have congress. we can change them. but you can't simply say you past something in a rush and you are going to fix it on the fly by disregarding what the statute actually says. >> what about that? >> we have had debates in congress as long as we have had congress. debates on both sides of the aisle. as much as we think this is a troubling time, it's no different than other troubles we've had. we had to deal with the bill of rights. this president is doing what others have tried to do. move the ball forward and say

i'm going to do some things. some of the things he has proposed are good for america, even though people are opposed. i think because of his politics, because he he is a democrat. he is going to try to make sure things are going to happen. he is going to wait for the court, if they are going to overrule what he is doing. let's think about the affordable care act. this is not new. every time we have come up again, this has been important. remember 1993? they called it the hillary care? >> whatever happened to her? >> she is running for population. she will be the first woman ever elected president, even though more than 50% of our population is women. i think there is no question people are enthusiastic and supportive.

my colleague and friend, senator elizabeth warren, is also a great democrat. she has also been concerned with middle-class families. someday she will be president. my secret candidate is somebody not on the ballot. the great smart brilliant person i had the honor of teaching, michelle obama. she will gebe a great president if she ever decides to run. >> you heard it here first. what about the business -- there is a law that says you have to do this on such and such a date. he is delaying the law. is that ok? >> yes. >> why? >> because he has the power of

his executive office to do what needs to be done. he is trying to make the affordable care act -- people call it obamacare, i call it obama cares. i think it will help the american people. there are a lot of people against it. i think the reality is even though people who are poor, rich, they have a lot of problems with this president, he has tried to do a lot of things internationally and globally and nationally and locally. hopefully a lot of that will happen going forward. >> let's talk about recess appointments. did you want to say something? >> i don't mind going to a pep rally for the president. >> have you been to any recently? >> no. the fact is, if there were a

private person who were employed by an employer who was excused by the president of providing a mandate. say i work for somebody who would be entitled to coverage except for the postponement, that person clearly can sue. that person can come into court to say the president has delayed the obligation of my employer. he has standing and a bang up claim on the merit. you can't say, as the answer to everything, the president has executive power. yes, he does. one of the executive powers is to make sure laws are faithfully executed. when congress says this has to be done on a certain term, he no less than any other citizen has to comply. >> isn't there a doctrine of law that says, as the supreme court

said two years ago, the affordable care act was affordable as a tax, the irs has the authority to delay the imposition of taxes at their discretion. isn't the delay in the obamacare employer mandate an exercise of that? >> two answers. first, no on the general point. the power to tax is the house of representatives. there's a statute that gives him the way -- gives some leeway to the treasury department and the administration. whether that covers the situation is an interesting issue. it says the treasury has the power to issue needful

regulations for enforcement of the aca. the question is whether this was needed, or whether this is the enforcement of the act. i would think neither of those things is really true. >> let's talk about recess appointments. this is a wonderful relic of a different time in american life. the recess appointment came in in the constitution in the horse and buggy era. congress was out of session and they could not come back -- >> for eight months at a time. >> the president had to do many things including fill vacancies. congress gave him this power. why would a president be using a recess appointment now? >> because the resistance from republicans to anything he is trying to do, because it is something the people of

the country want from affordable care. the majority want some affordable care in one sense or another. even the polls -- people watch jimmy kimmel. i watch him and fox news. i get a lot of information from fox news. the thing about it, he did a survey. how many people would like the affordable care act? everybody was against it before. how many people like obamacare? no way, we don't want it. the president did a poor job of explaining what the affordable care act was. when it was going to be implemented, how much it will cost. it is something we have been trying to get for this country for a very long time. it is a very costly and complicated thing. but i think it is a necessary thing to make sure people can find somewhere to get medical

care for their family. i think that is a salute to this person who is trying to do something against the strain of people were saying politically you cannot do it. >> ok, let's talk about recess appointments. miguel argued -- i got to say, miguel and i are law school classmates. this is one of the great arguments i have ever heard by miguel in the supreme court. almost as great as his socks. [laughter] what was the issue? >> let us back up. the constitution has for these purposes two rules for how you go about naming federal officers. the general rule -- this is what you do all of the time -- it

says you cannot appoint somebody to be an officer of the u.s. or a judge or a high-ranking government job unless you get the advice and consent of the senate. that can be difficult, i am here to tell you, since i was once nominated by a president and filibustered seven times. but that is the system we have. if you don't get the senate to agree, you do not have an appointment. the next one says when the senate is in recess, you can appoint temporarily until the next session of congress. that is the exception. it is unusual to say you get to involve the break glass in case of emergency part of the constitution when your reason

for doing it is not that the senate is away because under the general rules, they are entitled to do that. if you don't get them to agree, you do not have an appointee. this may be viewed as obstruction by some. it is what the constitution says. you have to get the senate to agree. the president got frustrated because he could not get the nlrb staff fully staffed. it is true that many of his appointees were not timely confirmed to the board. but that wasn't really the case with his recess appointments. the folks had not even had their questionnaires in to the senate. at the time, the senate was coming in for what the senate called a session every three days. what happened that the session was the senator in charge of the chamber that day, a member of

the president's party, gaveled the senate into session and 40 seconds later they would level the senate out of session. nothing was done in these sessions. the president said you are effectively on recess. you are not confirming my nominees and named people. i represented some people who were also challenging. i forget the exact number. i think 44 randomly selected members of the senate. >> it was all the republicans. >> yes.

we went into the d.c. circuit on broad grounds. the circuit said the appointments were unlawful because under the original understanding of the constitution, you could only appoint somebody if the vacancy had arisen in that recess. the only recess that counted was in between formal sessions of congress. in congress. i had argued more narrowly, by and the way, steve, i made a narrow argument. i only argued the senate is not in recess. the court was unanimous. there was nobody who believed the president had this power. the two people he appointed did not vote for him, who said, this is an unlawful appointment. and in and in they disagreed and in a with the d.c. circuit.

a and it was not that the recess a and you be kept out of the clause. it was not necessary that the last person to occupy the office and had left during the same you had left during the same recess. and that actually in many ways a is a huge victory for executive power. in and you and i and >> if the d c circuit had prevailed? i think it is safe to say the recess appointment power as a practical matter would have disappeared. it is not gone that presidents can use this, but they have to use it in narrower circumstances than president obama. >> what the court said was the senate has the keys to this power. they can choose to go. if they choose to stay by coming

in every three days and having a 40-second session, that is enough. if they think they are not in recess, the president does not have this power. this is a question that may vary depending on whether the president's party is in power. if the republicans control the senate, there will never be a recess. the democrats keep control in the chamber, they in theory force a recess. this is probably more than you need to know. most lawyers have not heard of this part of the constitution. the senate has to come in every three days, because it cannot be away for longer without the consent of the house of representatives.

and as you go away for more than three days without the permission of the others. if he senate wants to have a recess and the house does not agree, the senate can vote for the recess and the president gets to adjourn houses of congress under article 2, which has never happened. >> it can happen. what is clear is a lot of people have not read the full constitution or what it says. the whole idea was a balance of power. they want the supreme court to decide those issues when there is a conflict. very few cases actually make their way to the supreme court. they are trying to figure out what to do based on what is right for the people. i think all these little clauses are what any president has to look at. that is going to be very clear in terms of what a recess appointment can be. the question is what kind of recess appointments can you do and what kind of hoops you need

to jump through. >> miguel made a reference to something which is a big part of the story. the filibuster. there are various ways of counting. the filibuster rule in the senate is you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. there are 55 democrats now. is the filibuster constitutional? >> i think it is. i think you make bad law when you start to say let me change the number now. it is damaging to my side of the aisle. that is not the way to decide law. we will be changing the constitution every single day, every single month. we cannot do that. >> the filibuster is not in the constitution.

>> it has been practiced over and over again. >> i think the filibuster is absolutely constitutional. >> it makes clear the senate can discuss and debate and agree and disagree. they can decide who can be appointed. it is a series of appointments. >> the constitution says each house of congress shall be the judge of its own procedures. the source of constitutional authority for each house, they can have quorum rules. there's a case from the 19th century where the quorum rule actually applied was the presiding officer could send the sergeant of arms into a nose count of anybody on the grounds.

the supreme court said they we get to do that. that was one of the cases they cited when saying even if the senate is coming in for 40 seconds, they get to do that. >> you both agree the filibuster is constitutional and necessary. has it been abused by the republican minority in president obama's term? is that one reason why these fights have arisen? has there been an abuse of the filibuster? is that why the president has made these recess appointments and other actions? >> the answer to your first question is yes. it has been abused. i don't think you can get rid of it. i do not think you can get rid of it.

that would make no sense at all. that would be contrary to what we believe as a productive government. even senator harry reid who reduced the number for confirmations to 60 to less than that, that was part of the power he could use as a u.s. senator. it will be interesting to see what happens in 2016. please vote, everyone. that will have a big determination for what happens to our country. i think that it's going to make a big difference. >> miguel? >> i take issue with the question. i don't think it makes sense to talk about abusing a procedural rule. if you accept that things cannot happen unless you have 60 votes, the point of the rule is to not have things happen unless you have the consensus of 60 people.

it is almost anti-commonsensical to say a rule you can do something -- maybe it is basic literacy. [laughter] >> you don't think -- do you agree with miguel? you don't think it has been abused? >> do i think it has been abused? no. >> ok, moving along then. [laughter] a related question is whether the resident has to defend laws that have been passed by congress. you have the justice department which says we defend the laws on the books. in a highly celebrated case, a law passed with overwhelming

support in the house and senate signed by president clinton. >> in his defending marriage state at the time -- [laughter] >> the c-span audience will love that. >> he has already served his term. >> is it appropriate for the justice department, as it did in this case, to say, we will not defend the defense of marriage act? >> the answer is yes. it is not this is a snap decision. eric holder has been an effective attorney general. his point is, i need to enforce the law and get opinions from people who are smart. he has a staff of lawyers. tell me what i should do.

doma was an act that did not make sense from his point of view. that is why he got rid of it. he has been much more powerful in what he has been doing. he has been talking about the idea that people with non-violent crimes for drug offenses should be reduced in sentences. we should not take away the right of people to vote to vote. he is trying to do things that robert kennedy did and other attorney generals did because they are saying the court is not acting, the people are not acting, these decisions have to be corrected. >> what is the law?

how does he get to pick and choose? >> he decided that doma was not an appropriate expression of the law. if we were to ask people 40 years ago, can we have gay marriage? people would say, are you crazy? no. can blacks vote 60 years ago? no. these things were a clear sense about what you could and could not do. at some point the attorney general who has to enforce the law and decide what is correct -- he is one of many attorney generals where the legislative body held him in contempt. he is trying to enforce the law as best he can, given these circumstances he has.

he is understanding that america is changing. a different population than it was before. a very different forum and interest. >> miguel, what about that? >> let's deal with the general question. the constitution sets forth the oath that the president has to take. the oath he has to take his is to support and defend the constitution. if a president believes a law is not constitutional, he has to comply with his oath and not defended the law. when he comes to that conclusion, he has to notify congress. whether that construct works in this specific context is a little bit of a harder question.

most presidents take very seriously the notion that they are relying on their own independent conclusion as to the constitutionality of a law when they refuse to defend it. therefore, the justice department, for decades, has taken the view that even if the incumbent executive does not agree with the statute, they will defend it so long as the justice department can think of arguments that will support it. one of the famous examples is the first president bush did not like the cable act of 1992 when it forced the cable companies to carry networks. it was thought to be a violation

of the first amendment. there are many cases in which a president comes to a conclusion that he has doubts about whether it is constitutional and he has policy differences with the statute. in those cases, the rule has been you defend it if you can think of arguments a court would accept because you owe that to the legislative ranch. doma was unusual. it would be difficult to say at the time that the administration could think of no arguments that would be accepted by the supreme court that would result in the statute being upheld. it is sort of in a relevant question now. whether or not, because the administration declined to

defend it or because the president was right along, we don't know, the supreme court held that it was not constitutional by a vote of 5-4. that could be because the president declined to defend it or he was right on the merits. it is difficult to know. >> let me ask you a general question. the text of the argument that is going on now is president obama has been unusually aggressive in the use of presidential power, whether in using his executive power to in effect impose the dream act, in terms of immigration, offering waivers for no child kind, that is

related to global warming in the epa. has he been more aggressive in the use of executive power than other recent presidents, or is this merely be span of his political adversaries? >> it's not spin. he has had to face a congress that would not support things he thought was of interest. he has used the act more than he should've, i think. but a president has to do something. you can't sit there and nod your head because congress has not done anything. people need jobs, education, housing, public safety, all these things. they need a president to do things the legislature has decided not to do. he has been good about doing those things, even though -- there are areas i think where he has crossed the line. >> which areas? >> i'm not going to tell you in front of the television audience.

[laughter] >> miguel, where does he stand in the hierarchy of use of presidential power? >> the truth is all presidents try to be very muscular about the use of executive power. this is why talking about issues like executive power in the abstract is best done by extrapolating from the incumbent all the people that are saying, today, the incumbent is trying to do his job. we were up in arms when bush was having the imperial presidency. if you go back in history, fdr fdr had to do land lease, which was not lawful because he could not get around congress. presidents have always tried to expand their executive power.

the question is not whether we like the incumbents. but whether we would like to observe the structural protections of because solution that say the executive, whether you like him or did not vote for him, has the power to do certain things. i don't think he is unusual. i think he is as pushy as other presidents have been. he is if anything a little bit maladroit about picking legal fights because he seems to pick those that are most likely to get shut down by the courts. if you put out a inflexible deadline on the theory, because i can, that is not likely to fly. if you appoint somebody in a , that isappointment not likely to fly. so he is doing what presidents always do but somewhat less

adroitly. >> who has a question? right there in the middle. are we doing microphones? i picked someone in the middle to make it most difficult. can you pass the microphone? [indiscernible] who is that? judge? >> a judge is not going to touch this. >> this woman, and then we will get to this gentleman next. this woman here first. >> one thing you said about the justice department and eric holder, that you thought he was effective, and in the case of fast and furious, and that was one of the first times i saw president obama say he had heard about it from watching television. >> what is the question?

>> the fast and furious. >> what about it? >> i want to know why the justice department did not investigate that. the next question was about the internal revenue service and lois lerner and the justice department investigating that. >> ok. thoughts? >> so people are up to speed, fast and furious is one of the wonderful things that could only happen in the government where somebody thinks they can make inroads by giving guns to drug traffickers in mexico. [laughter] this was, hey, government does dumb things all the time. this is why the framers of the constitution wanted very little of this thing.

the president came to be aware of this. there was a question about whether the attorney general had been aware of it. some in the congress viewed his answers to that question as not being adequately responsive or his having not adequately explain himself. that is why the house held him in contempt. i don't want to single out the attorney general because again, when a house of congress is controlled by the other party, there is a lot of close inquisition into the practices of the administration. i think this one was so remarkably dumb that it did deserve an investigation. other people may disagree. i will give you lois lerner. [laughter] >> the question involved the use of the irs against political

enemies. that is the accusation. >> this always happens and is never good. it is a very serious problem that all of us face when you are investigated not because you have done a crime, but just because they have access to your information. as far as fast and furious goes, that was a problematic decision by eric holder as well. i would not have authorized it. i understand what he thought he was doing. it was a great idea that went bad. it is almost as bad as the first thing he said the first week he was attorney general. he said americans are cowards when it comes to discussing issues of race. president obama said, wait, don't say anything without my approval.

eric will still say what he thinks he has learned and what needs to be done. i think a lot of interesting things have happened. people focus on the bad things he has done. i think the attorney general has done a lot for this country in the six years. i think he will go down in history as somebody who pushed the envelope to make sure justice applied to every single person in america. not just those who are wealthy or employed. those who are well known. some of the poorer people in the community. >> sir? >> my question, back to the filibuster that you spent considerable time discussing. at one time, it required 66 votes. then it dropped to 60. we know majority rule is important. major laws have been passed by

one vote. in your opinion, would it be helpful if the senate would drop it from 60 to 55? you would still have a majority and the power to stop things. it might speed things up. >> harry reid did drop the cloture rules from 60 to 50 for lower-court judges and president's executive appointments. that has led to a lot of confirmations in the past several months, including several to very important courts of appeal. what you think, miguel? the so-called nuclear option. >> these questions are up to the senate. this is how they think they can do business as a body. i don't think one is better than

the others. the senate cannot do business unless it does business on consensus. trying to force change without acquiescence of the minority is a bad idea. but if they come to a consensus, that is fine. >> i think it definitely has to be 50 or more. i get worried about the reduction to the low 50's. it will change when different people are in the senate. i think that is very problematic. >> in the back. >> we return to the affordable care act and the ability of the house to sue.

the point that it is a tax. i want to ask a question about two supreme court decisions. they decided that the -- is called chevron. it says unless it directly violates the words of the statute, as long as it is reasonable, that is fine. two years ago, the supreme court decided a tax case you mean the ministry said the ability, the treasury department and irs, to write whatever rules they want to write unless it clearly violates the words of the statute. the affordable care act has -- >> what is your question? >> whether or not based on the authority given to the

administration, to write guidance and interpretation, is there any way the house can win that suit? >> this actually goes to the merits if you go back to the standing question. the answer to that is yes. the key to understanding why the answer is yes is you have advocacy in your description of the chevron case. what it says is we do a two-step analysis.

we ask what the statute speaks to, whether progress had an intent. if the answer is yes, the agency has no further role. just like the courts, they have to give effect to the words of congress. if there's an ambiguity with regard to the particular question of the issue, the agencies can exercise discretion under chevron to fill the gaps. that is what the court calls it, a gap, that is there. it is the stock and trade of federal agencies to claim there is always ambiguity. federal agencies will find ambiguity in a no smoking sign. that is not how the courts going -- go about doing it. if they go on the chevron issue in merits, by examining such of -- some of the questions, then it is unlikely the administration could win. it is true as i said earlier there are other parts of the tax law that give discretion to the administration with respect to the enforcement of the tax laws. one can fairly quibble whether

declining to enforce the tax laws is actually the enforcement. >> secretary. also former judge. >> one of the justifications you sometimes hear from the administration, and particularly true in the immigration decision to identify and categorize people who will not be deported, one of the arguments that is made is the president gets to have enforcement priorities so he can decide how he wants to allocate enforcement. i want to ask you this hypothetical question. let's say you have a conservative president who says we have taxes that are too high. he goes to congress and says i would like you to cut the top

rate from 39% to 10%. maybe there is a filibuster. does the president have the right to use his enforcement power or discretion to say to the irs you cannot collect more than 10% owed when they file tax returns? is that a legitimate argument for a president who says, i am trying to save the economy and congress is not cooperating? >> great. >> i would love to have that hypothetical in class. i think every student in my class conservative or democrat would say, the reality is i don't think it would work. >> i just wrote about ted cruz. he made a very similar point. he said somebody who's going to

be a republican president -- what if he says these epa environmental rules that congress has passed our to do crony and -- are too draconian. i'm going to increase the amount of discharges in the water. >> one of the wonderful things about the hypothetical is it is only on the surface designed to illustrate something that sounds really silly. that comes as a -- is what the president has done here. recall that the consequences of not complying with the deadline is that you have to pay money into the treasury. what he has done is to say congress passed a law that says if you do not do such and such in the year 2014, you have to put money into the treasury. he has suspended the collection

of the tax, which is what the court held it was. it is not that different from this case. it is a slight exaggeration of this case. >> a couple more questions? how about the gentleman like there with the blue shirt. it is very hard to see with the light. well, anyway -- >> whoever has the mic, speak. >> is anyone in constitutional law tried to rank presidents on the abuse of power? whether there are more democrats or republicans? correlated that with lack of interpersonal skills? has anyone done that kind of research or work in the law profession? >> not to my knowledge. >> the answer is, it has been

done to read a lot of the -- has been done. all of the people have been criticize were republicans. i think what they were doing was important, like abraham lincoln. but the whole idea is i have to do this because it will be important for our society. i also would say this. i said a thousand times, you cannot decide a president's significance after he or she -- there have been no she's but we hope there will be soon -- you have to figure out what impact it will have on the public. >> the guy in the blue shirt that i failed to recognize less time? >> you recognized me. she failed to give me the microphone. my question deals with legal reliance.

if i am a citizen or business and an administration chooses not to enforce a certain set of laws. therefore, i take actions that are in conflict with the laws on the books. believing it is not an issue because the administration is not forcing them. what would be my legal exposure to a successor administration that chooses to enforce the laws on the books retroactively? >> tough question. >> it is not that tough. in the civil context, when you have not paid taxes, if by the time the next administration comes in, if they are with in

the statute of limitations, then you are done. you have to pay the taxes. with respect to any other type of enforcement action, especially criminal prosecution, if you have failed to do something in reliance on official advice, that tends to negate the state of mind necessary for criminal liability. you would likely get an acquittal on the theory you lack the state of mind necessary to violate the law. in good faith, you said you were not doing it. that is usually not a defense to the payment of money in taxes. >> you are good lawyer. somebody over here. >> isn't it true that even if

congress were able to obtain a judgment against the president, they would not be able to enforce it because they would have to go to the executive branch for that enforcement? and the executive branch would refuse to enforce that, in which case they could get another judgment against him which he would refuse to enforce? isn't the only real check against a president who fails to uphold the law the impeachment power? isn't that where it is supposed to be? >> two answers. it is an excellent question and it really does highlight any -- in a dramatic way why courts are reluctant to get into abstract fights between branches of government. that is why it is going to be challenging for the speaker to convince the court they have standing.

in the doma case, you had a question of standing because the administration had not -- question was whether any number of people from congress could. justice scalia joined justice thomas. he filed a dissent where he made that point. what would happen is the houses of congress would be required to exercise the weapons in their arsenal. not give the president money. maybe go as high as the impeachment. that illustrates why courts are reluctant to find -- the houses of congress will have to resort to weapons they had all along. >> you two have been surprising in your willingness to consider

these lawsuits. let me conclude. we are over time. by raising an issue that walter jones raised yesterday. if you agree that the house of representatives can sue the president of the united states, can you envision a scenario where the president can sue the house? >> you are making reference to the hearings that happened yesterday. if you conclude that one house could sue the president, you have to envision circumstances when the president would then sue in his official capacity to force official action by the house of congress. again, i am not trying to prejudge the merits of a lawsuit that has not been filed. i think everybody understands the president -- i think people

on my side of the aisle tend to believe the merits question is very easy because it is a calendar. one, 20 4 -- january 1, 2014 does not have chevron ambiguity. even people who are driven to consider a lawsuit i think fully understand these pieces can be very challenging to bring into court. about the issue -- the scenario of the president suing congress? >> i think it is possible but very problematic. terriblebe and a very state as a country to have the president suing congress. there is good reason for it but it means we have lost all sense justice when it comes to treating people equally. i think that is important. thate no doubt in my mind

the president decided to sue whoever he or she was would find great lawyers like you have on this panel. [laughter] it would not be pro bono. >> it depends on the client is. >> please join me in thanking them both. [applause]

>> on our facebook page, we've been asking the question will be reelected your member of congress? hundred seven given the responses, including judy who says yes, i will. i have a good democratic congressmen who is try to get something done during his first term in office. do notosts not if they secure our border without us paying the oc -- fees for people invading our country. to join theebook conversation and read responses from other viewers. last month, former vice presidential candidate sarah palin spoke at the western conservative summit in denver. she called on congress to impeach president obama for what she called high crimes and misdemeanors. here is a look.

these days you hear all these politicians who are denouncing barack obama saying he is a lawless imperial president. he ignores court orders and changes laws. and refuses to enforce laws he does not like. that is true but the question is it?hat are you doing about [applause] let's call their bluff. i am calling their bluff. we need a little less talk and a lot more action. there is only one remedy for a president who commit high crimes and misdemeanors and it is impeachment. the i word. >> that was a portion of sarah palin's remarks from last month of the western conservative summit in denver. you can watch the entire remarks tonight at 8 p.m. eastern right here on c-span.

all this month, while congress is in recess, we are sure you book tv in prime time starting at 8:00 eastern. books on immigration. a panel discussion on the us-mexico border and then tom miller discusses his book border control nation. after that, the book "the migration miracle" on undocumented journey. book tv tonight on c-span2. on c-span, it is american history tv. it is been 40 years since the watergate investigation and tonight the opening statement from july 1974 as the house judiciary committee began hearings to consider articles of impeachment against president nixon. see that tonight on 8:00 eastern at c-span 3. book tv this weekend --

friday night at 8:00 eastern with books on marriage equality, the obamas versus the clintons, and the autobiography of the former way -- mayor of washington marion barry. afterward, bob woodward interviews john dean on the watergate scandal. marks, president and ceo of the new york public library shed light on the library's past, present, and future. television for serious readers. >> about 50 african heads of state are here in washington this week for a summit being held by the obama administration. earlier today, former president bill clinton took part in discussion on business opportunities. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. i would like to begin by thanking the secretary and mayor bloomberg for the enormous amount of work they and their teams have done to bring us together.

--m very grateful to present president obama for sponsoring this. this is probably something we should've done a long time ago. there are many heads of state from africa here and political and business leaders from both continents. ouro want to say that thoughts are with the leaders of liberia, guinea, and sierra leone who could not be here because they had to stay home to deal with the ebola outbreak. we wish them well. i told a analyst before we came out today that i hate panels. they are over directed. i do not like ones where members filibuster. i do want them to say what they have to say about this issue. we all want more trade, more investment. it is generally known that

africa is going to grow as it has somewhere between 5% and 7% as the continent. six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are in africa. it may go to seven in the coming decade. the middle class is growing, but in spite of the $80 billion in foreign investments and the $400 billion in exports we will see this year, three quarters of those exports are still in oil and gas and diamonds. the potential for economic diversification is great. there is 650 million cell phone users on the continent of 900 million people. only 300 million people with electricity. about 170 million people with generally good internet access. 23% of the people have a bank account, thanks to cell phone banking and 5% have a credit card.

there are lots of obvious options here. to those of you, the small number here, nor interested in this subject but have not had a lot of contact with africa, i think it is important to say that our african panelists will not have to say the obvious -- it is a continent, not a country. the laws of countries matter. the practices and the coulters and the opportunities will be different from place to place. all these panelists have a lot of experience on all the relevant issues. this conference is well organized. this is supposed to be about how business-to-business context can increase, investment, and economic activity. then there is a panel on infrastructure. then there was one on finance which is a huge deal. then there is one of government action.

i told her panelist not to worry too much. they will have to say some things about the constraints and opportunities in these categories. with that as a background, i jeffreyke to start with immelt because general electric has been involved in africa for 116 years. since 1898. they are about to get the hang of it. [laughter] add you.t to angola and all the things that have been done that wet strikes me only barely scratched the surface of what we could and should be doing there. we are missing the boat. we should understand this is a massive opportunity for american business. based on your experience, what

do you want to say to the americans here and what do you want to say to the africans here about what one or two things each of us can do to accelerate this process? >> thanks, mr. president. thanks again to penny and the president for doing this. it is a great step that shows the commitment and the potential that the region has. fellow say to all of the ceos, the number one thing is give local. us consider this earlier in our careers to the europeans, mainly because the u.s. market was so good. at my age, for long time you didn't have to travel much. we gave the europeans first into the chinese later. today, it is wide open for us. you have to give local. i think financing is the number one cap, at least in the businesses we are in.

investableking is strategies that governments pay to put forward. there was a right way to do a power purchase agreement and a wrong way. if you want people to invest in it. we need more convergence around good standards on behalf of the governments. we need more risk capital. billion ofobably $25 infrastructure investment in this room alone, but you all want to be the second person in after somebody has taken risk? we need a good coordination of the government, world bank, people like that along with real investors were willing to get that first investment in. let us not kid ourselves about financing. it has to be flexible. it has to fit the african standard. we need risk based financing. the third thing i would say --

this is a small thing -- i think all of us would benefit if there were some regional integration in africa. african alliance, neeson african alliance that would add some more countries. four or five countries we can invest behind. that is what i would put forward. >> let me ask you one follow-up question. we don't want to get in the middle of the political wars. how important do you think it is in getting more financing in africa for american businesses to renew the export import? >> there are a lot of things to be critical about big businesses. there are a lot of things that do not work in government, but exporting is not one of them. the xm is not one of them. the fact we had to sit here and argue is just wrong. there are 53 export banks around the world. the u.s. on a relatively small than a lot of what

europe does or what china does. ise poorly than anything is that shows the u.s. cares. i am not asking ge, caterpillar, gm -- we are not asking for favors. the hand ofts need the u.s., the underwriting of the u.s.. risk capital will come back if that happens. we punch way above our weight with xm. it speaks to a country's interest in the region that is a competitive weapon and creates jobs here. you creates jobs in the countries we go to. >> thank you. establishedhave some remarkable partnerships with iconic american brands. backstage that

you have some very clear ideas of what should be done. from the african side, what can be done to celebrate the business partnerships and foreign investment and creation of jobs? >> thank you. mr. president, i think more than just looking at what we as africans can do. together, what we can do is look challenge asf african countries. the key area for us is around the young people that we have in africa. make up 20%r-olds of the population of the continent today. sure thate is making we have those people being educated to be able to contribute towards the continued growth of our economy. partnerships,our we have been able to great partnerships with mcdonald's and

coca-cola. that is a key area for us. we sawdonald's today, 11,300 people in africa. what we have done is focused on educating and empowering young people coming into our business. what we do is we have a significant focus on them. from a business perspective, it is important that we focus on education and empowerment of young people so that as we go forward, we have the resources that we require to push the economy moving forward. that perspective, we will have the capability to be able to continue to grow our economies in the matter we need to do. >> do you think it would be helpful to design programs that are tied directly to the job market? i must say this is not just a

problem in africa. this is a problem in america and all over the world. there is a job shortage for young people everywhere. it was part of what triggered the spring in kay row. they were producing 400,000 college graduates a year and nowhere near the jobs. they were not trying to do the jobs that were or might brought there. is this something we should do together? >> absolutely. yeah. absolutely. i think we definitely need to be focusing on pushing for more education of young people together. i think it is a critical issue for us to focus on as we move forward. if you think about it what is the one critical resource that we need to move our continent forward and continue to grow? it is to develop our young people. from that perspective to be able to continue to have

various other challenges we face. we know that there are a number of sectors that require significant investment. you know from that perspective what i would say is that for american investors coming into the african continent the one thing we need to be looking at, you cannot be looking at coming into the african continent with the perspective of being able to invest immediately as many of you know. you all have been investors in the african continent. it is the issue of making sure that we are willing to invest in the infrastrrblingt requirements of the country you are ip vesting in. whether it is investing in the people of the country or investing in the infrastructure it is important to be able to do that prior to the actual investment in the business. you know with it you won't have that continued growth of your business. you won't be able to support

the country you are in as well. > thank you. >> first of all, congratulations. you made your move in africa partly by acquiring a company. and you are successful in this country and around the world in no small measure not just some people to give you a good price but because you have a brilliant supply chain operation. i think, based on my own experience working on trying to get aids drugs to people in the last, helping very small farmers become part of a

competitive market that these supply chain issues are quite profound but they should create an economic market. talk to me a little bit about why did you go in to africa by buying another company first and what is your take on this supply chain issue and whether it is both an opportunity and an obstacle to future investment? >> it is the issue for us. i would love to talk about it. first of all, thank you for having us. we are honored to be here. i am excited about africa. i started to go a few years ago. as we look at what we are trying to do in africa, we are trying to provide customers access to fresh produce and others access at a great value to do that we have to have a great supply chain. in the case of africa. we are taking the learning we have done in other parts of the world to invest in supplemented areas where it is needed. but all of us need to do that.

we want to take the fresh produce and reach to small and medium holders, enable them to be more productive in their yields to provide houses where they need them and to put the pieces in place to put the system that supplies the store which creates jobs for value goods and more commodity type items to lift the whole thing and have a system that works. for to us say long-term prop siggeds, we invested $2.6 billion in 2011. that is just the beginning. what we are expecting and the reason we made the investment is that we think the whole do the e going to right thing to create the right rule it is and the right transparency and the ip frastructure investments so president whole thing works. we want to do our part. one of the benefits we are tapping into the sources of supply for produce and wine and

exporting them out of africa and selling them in the united states and u.k. one of my favorite stories is about a couple of sisters that came back together apartheid and formed a winery. they were selling it in 500 u.s. centers and sold about 500 cases so far. we would have never found them if not for the presence in africa. >> andrew. what is your take on the future of africa? while manufacturing is the most rapidly growing section of the economy in terms of annual productivity growth therefore every year fewer people produce more stuff, whatever that stuff is. the multiplier effect in manufacturing jobs in every society on earth is quite high.

the origin promise of the east african community and knee pad o have basic multinational continental marketing and open markets and more free trade within africa. i think that is slowing down a lot of manufacturing investments that might otherwise come. so talk about that. what do you think we ought to do about that and what can the conference do to help? >> thank you mr. president. thanks for being invited here. we have been in africa 60

years. i think we all cut our teeth earning in south africa. big companies that bring their supply chains to africa also have to face the continents' philosophies and practices in governments and bad governments and how to use aid with how to address poverty. there is still a pie there that is expanding but it is leaving a lot of people behind. income equality and jobs for youth and youth employment in general is the issue of most developing nations. the solution based we have gotten into like clustering and free trade and all of the things you mentioned, i think it used to be thought of as a bad thing in making industrial policy and all of that. i have been trying in my many travel it is with emerging nations to use singapore and

thailand and a few other countries that have generations skipped. actually you won't have to go through the learning curve of the united states and other nations of 100 years ago. you can generation skim. avoid the pollution. instead of being a raw material exportor, which is obviously where you start first and american companies are the type that we are, we bring value you know. we have 86 around the world where we prefer to be in those joint ventures. the whole notion of going local around advanced manufacturing needs to be brought to a nation state. if it never cost us and creates regional clusters, so be it. at least within countries of size like kenya.

we have worked with the kenyan government to do exactly that. how would you approach designing this economy such as you can take advantage of the most important resources you have. you have agriculture. you can't waste food. how about your people. how do you organize yourself so the infrastructure does get built. how will you take on that mentality. they are actually building industrial clusters, which is the beginning of the supply chains. this is a generational move. you have to come in with the training programs at the grass roots level. people 1 dowd and ibm in ethopia, training people on how to do this stuff in the schools and these partnership models. this is for africa by africans. going local as fast as you can means reverse training. i think the great american

model and the great american enterprise figured it out by bringing value chains and actually creating jobs. advanced manufacturing in a way destroys jobs. you can't do what que used to do. that is not enough. you have to really figure your way through advanced economy development learning lessons like how do i complete an aviation chain. there is say whole supply chain they have been able to build with. this is really -- we call if an advanced manufacturing plan. we worked with governments to do that. that partnership model, working with schools is the only way forward. i know africa can generation skip if it does this faster than the learning curve of previous countries. >> just to follow up on that, i

torilize. ot to ed one of the opportunities the african business leaders have here is to add the value of their own natural resources before they leave the country, before they leave the region. before they leave the continent. i think that we should really need to, american investment look s represented here at this value added proposition. i was talking to a group last night about the work that we did rwanda to bring them a coffee operation. we sold all of that coffee for years but they were just coffee beans. once we marketed it to the world it made a huge difference and they made so much more money. all of which was used to

reinvest in their businesses, protect their topsoil and do all of the things you are talking about. same thing with the soybean process. the opportunities would surprise a lot of people there but not in the value added chain. there are lots of opportunities there. >> your coffee example, the crop of choice, state your full name of choice in africa. they are not good at producing it. you can do research to help them complete the supply chain in africa and we are doing work in nigeria to replace wheat flour in bread. then there is bread that cuts out a lot of cost. this is the sort of close the supply chain point you are making with coffee which is there if you go local. >> the point that i want to make for the investment here is that there is actually money in his, real money.

africa is very under invested. i have a lot of other questions. want to go here next. it has been interest to me to watch your emotions. not from being a person that made a lot of money in a traditional industry to someone that is thinking about where you want africa to be 5 to 20 years from now. we were talking about nigeria before you came out and how fortunate we have been at least, knock on wood so far, that with the political turmoil in the north that sometimes creeps into the middle of the country. to lant has been able operate and grow at a very brisk rate, highly important for all africans if you are going to build a continental model because there are more

people there than anywhere else. just tell us you want potential american investors to know, what you need the most, and what you think you and your fellow africans should do to help us build more partnerships. >> thank you. first of all, it is great to be here. what i think there is quite a lot to be done. i think this forum will help in times of bringing people together and in times of bringing africans and americans together. or us to know ourselves. and i think we will be partners, a lot of american companies. i know a couple of them have information. they are still thinking about africa in the last 10-15 years. eally things have changed.

we have been growing about 5 minute 5% on average. when you look at the future, the future is there. if we continue mr. president to grow at 5.5%. that actually was without power. so that is no power. when i say there is no power, you know you look at a country for example like liberia where 20 million st population from the states that come from nigeria, sharing 32 megawatts of power. there is actually no power there. we have been struggling. you know a series of the ormation in terms of

political stability that has been there for some time. political issues here and there. it will continue to grow accident even like this. the projection is that in the 5.5% you know, 5-6 years, africa will have about $10 trillion dollar g.d.p. it is going to be a great story, you know. we are growing very, very rapidly. . you know, yes a lot of risk people always talk about risk. if you do not know the story they have not really been there. mr. president, you said that africa is about 54 countries. some people talking about africa, people believe africa is like one state. somebody like me, i need about 37 visas to move around in

frica, you know. 8% of the country is to get a isa and move around. this is a big market. obviously i do not expect g.e. just to open up factories all over the place. but if they go to west africa and open in nigeria there should be free movement of wood the continent itself. we have looked at this. there is quite a lot of opportunities. most of these companies, they are eager to go to africa and invest. but they don't have the partner who really knows africa to

invest with. a lot of american companies must have one or two companies of which to partner with. and mr. president, i would like to, you know, announce that for s at our group we actually have two major partnerships. the partnership which will be announced today. in e investing $5 billion he power infrastructure across africa. [applause] with this we will definitely close the gap. there is quite a lot of gap.

we know about the gap. you know it is there. it is very serious and very aggressive. so they will really make it work. we will have $1 billion which is to invest in refining and also refining, agriculture and inancial services. you know when we decided to do the africa you fund we took 10% of that, which is $15 million. but we raised more than $728 million. i am sure that will be quite a lot. i hope somebody will be out here to do this. >> remember who sells power generating equipment. >> yeah, we do. >> david, steve. just wanted to get that in there. >> you know i think that is the

urpose of this conference. i should have been your agent. let me ask you a question about the power, all of you. elated to the supply chains. again it is only based on my experience in two or three countries where we do business development and work for the clinton foundation and our partners there. africa still has a lot of inequality in terms of economic opportunity and the options like all places city to country. the one thing that had spread like wildfire as it has all over the world is cell phone technology. that is why you have as many as 23% of the people having a bank account because of the cell phone technology. potentially you can have two-thirds of the people banking just on their phones.

that is essentially what we are oing in haiti today. to some extent, based on my experience, where we have to have some power source to preserve medical tests for example when we try to fill health clinics in rural areas. we need a combination if we want to accelerate growth and make it even of centralized power off of the grid and distributed power through solar ind and solid waste. you do both. so what is your take on that? you were the energy and development minister of any african country with a substantial rural population, would you pursue a duel strategy, and if so what are the implications of that for investment funds and american

companies wanting to do business there? >> i would say mr. president you need both. you have roughly 100 gigawatt deficit of electricity in africa. it is pervasive. i think the grid is not going to be invested in quickly enough. i would advocate maybe leading with distributed power. you have got to solve for the gas availability issues. you know you kind of start with fuel. you have countries that have hydro capability. hydro should be a real option. you have countries that have natural gas and the issues should be to get the natural gas priced the right way, putting it back in the system. to get some pipeline or rail infrastructure to do distributed power. you have countries that have wind capability like kenya and

tanzania where wind can be public and the sunshines in most places. i would pick the countries that can get gas, do both large and distributed gas. the countries that have hydro, do hydro. there has to be coal in the mix. we need to be practical about where that goes. we have to have distributed solar programs throughout the region and i think it will take a multitude of different things. every government in this room should have a very transparent energy policy and you should have a very transparent financing scheme. whether it is a trade or power purchase agreement there is a right and wrong way to do that to attract investment. i would say the things that can be localized here are gas. you know you will have enough

scale to localize some turbine technology, localize a lot of wind here. not only are you solving infrastructure issue you will solve a job issue. i will start with the fuels and then go to the structure. the last point i make is i say solve the easy problems first. doing something like building a nuclear power plant is the hardest thing on earth to do. if you laid everything on earth down and picked the hardest, it is the hardest. i don't think that will be a pervasive technology to be advanced in africa. >> you want to comment on this? >> i do. this is a passion of mine. energy policy for nation state it is is something to learn from all of the rest of us who got it wrong. this country still does not have it right. one thing to do is start at efficiency conservation end and work backwards into the grids

and fuel sources. if you go the fuel way you are naming the price of oil. at is a problem with affordable energy. you are not going to get all of the things we want from competitiveness unless it is affordable. start with the bcu you never use rather than the one you pay too much for. national building standards. generations skipped in terms of smart city designs like many are putting in place today. traffic patterns, logistics. we waste 40% of the energy we use through bad buildings and lack of national building codes. if you can intervene and work your way back into the fuel sources. if you are fortunate to have your own natural gas, the cleanest fuel you can burn, use that domesticly before you xploit it for a one-time gain.

bring that money back and do something wise with it. this is all of the above energy strategy in my definition. >> before we go to doug, in his former life mayor bloomberg at the end of his term was the chairman of a group called the c-40 through big cities throughout the world dedicated to greater energy efficiency and sustainibility through clean energy in urban areas. the clinton foundation was a technical implementer for a lot of this. there are a lot of african cities today now in our coalition that are getting efficient bus transit that is trying to close all of their landfills and use the energy sources and recycling and all of working up and down the line to get more out of what is there. so it is no longer people

thinking it is an offbeat, irrelevant issue. i think it is something that deserves more attention perhaps later in the day in the other panels. i don't think that there is any big company in america that tried to do more on the sustainibility issue than wal-mart has. what do you think about this? this is an opportunity for in effect creating energy through sustainibility in africa. dfted ct the dots with energy. we are in pursuit of renewable energy where we operate around the world and use a lot of hydro and wind in mexico in. africa it seems like there is a place given the outline that jeff gave us for investments to accelerate this probable cause. to do generation skipping. what new equipment can do today compared to what old equipment

required is dramatically different. i visited a lot of stores in africa and i have seen what the competition is doing, there is a lot of waste in the system that new money could generate more efficiency and a tremendous return. i think that there is an nvestment opportunity there. >> the other issue is also looking at more involvement of the data. it is still very much a public sector driven area. and we need to have more legislation that allows the private sector to participate in this. and then having looked at that, i would say that we need to have countries focusing on energy sources. that makes more sense to them. you know if you look at it, it is not necessarily the answer to every country. for instance gas is not easily available in south africa. but it is available in nigeria. you know, you need to look at fuel sources that are available

and make the most out of those. so if i were to look at it from a south africa perspective, i would say that we need to use up the coal we have and also look at the newer energy sources which our government has already introduced. renewable energy, looking at the full spectrum. seeing what can be introduced first and then bringing that into account. i think there is still a lot that needs to be done in terms of the regulation as well, making sure that we have that and having it in a manner that is beneficial. >> one last word on this? >> yes, sir. i think that in africa, i believe we can generate power from various sources, you know. you know some countries have -- we have hydro, coal, we have gas. i mean today in nigeria we have the potential gas reserves of

263 trillion cubic feet of gas. using up 1 billion cubic feet of gas. we can do quite a lot there. but i think we need to pay ttention to power. >> most of the small and medium enterprises aren't going to work unless we have power. it's something we need to do. it is very important and critical. secondly, with this interaction between africa and united states, i believe it is very important and paramount to renewing our exim bank status. a