tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 21, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EST
of corn goes into an ethanol plant, when you look at that bushel of corn, it is about 56 pounds. about 17 pounds of it becomes the fuel. another 17 pounds is actually carbon dioxide. the last 17 pounds is that mash that terry was talking about. it is a livestock feed. aztec corn goes into the plant, it is not lost all to the creation of the ethanol. it is also going back into the feed supply just like the corn normally did before ethanol can about. you are still seeing dual usage for the crop even though we have that fuel usage up front. so, having a bushel in corn with ethanol demand is not necessarily mean you lost that all bushel of corn for other
sources as well. as i mentioned earlier, as we look at the demand for corn and thus far, it is pretty much been matched by the production increases that we have seen. you have fuel and feed occurring from the same bushel of corn. host: here are comments about the economics of farm management. guest: farming is a competitive industry, which means in the long run profits are basically zero. if you look over the past 50 years, farming operations tend to have a few good years of returns, followed by longer periods of time with little to no return. it is balancing all those good times with what is happening during every other time. as terry mentioned, the idea that we are seeing fewer farmers
out there, in some ways, that is due to the productivity of today's farmers and due to the technological advances we have made in our agricultural production. the idea of planting takes a lot less time today than it did a decade ago. that consolidation, we are able to create this production, which means we see less people actively employed per host: chad hart, thank you for being with us. that is the end of the "washington journal" today. we will be on again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow, on c-span 2, "book tv ." you could get the entire 48-hour schedule online.
enjoy your weekend. we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> you are watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies as a public service. we will start our live coverage with congressional democrats. they are holding their annual issues conference in maryland. news conference coming up with nancy pelosi, steny hoyer and
other democratic leaders. that gets underway at 11:30 a.m. eastern. the council of mares are focusing on the economy this -- of mayors are focusing on the economy today. president obama departing the white house within the hour. he will be at the general electric plant. he will tap the head of ge to lead his council on jobs and competitiveness. you can see his remarks live act 1:00 p.m. eastern on -- at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. president obama delivers the state of the union live tuesday at 8:00 p.m.. the republican response and your
phone calls live on c-span, c- span radio, and online act -- at c-span.org. >> on television, on radio, and online, c-span. bringing public affairs to you. thinking you washington your way. >> now to a discussion on how u.s. courts might deal with future cases concerning gun rights. we will hear about u.s. court decisions about a individuals -- an individual's rights to bear arms. this is about 90 minutes. the court.
hello and welcome and thank you for being here today. i want to extend our special welcome to our c-span audience and a thank you to c-span for covering our event today. that's always a welcomed edition about i'm dean router vice president and director of practice groups at the federal society. our program today on the future of the right to keep and bear arms is co-sponsored by the federalist society and the cato institute after having been conceived in the first instance by the federal of society's civil rights practice group. i want to thank our four panelists in advance for their remarks and their time today. we're expecting to hear some pretty sharply, contrasting views from the four of you. i also want to thank our co-sponsor cato and dr. roger pylon of cato. i thank them for their help. in addition to help organizing the program, dr. pylon's going to be our moderator today. he's the founder and director of cato's center for constitutional studies and he's a frequent speaker at federalist lawyers
and student chapter events around the country discussing all manner of constitutional issues and including of course the second amendment. again, roger, thank you for your role and in making this program possible today. >> well, thank you very much, dean, for introducing me. i want to also join dean in welcoming all of you to the event this afternoon and to the cato institute and to thank dean and the federalist society for co-sponsoring this forum. let me welcome those of you who are wahing the forum through cato simulcast or will later be watching it through e good offices of c-span. when dean called me a couple of weeks -- a couple of months ago actually about doing this for him on the future of the right to keep and bear arms, we had no way of knowing, of course, that the issue would soon beme salient once again as it has in
the aftermath of the tragic shootings in arina, less than two weeks ago. gun control is a perennial issue in american politics, of course. but at times like this, the debate becomes especially intense. our concern today, however, will be less on the politics of the issue ch less on the prospects of enacting new federal legislation which seems unlikely as the new 112th congress focuses, as it's already doing, on such basic questions as whether they have the constitutional authority to do so much that congress is doing today. rather we're going to focus on the legal issues andvents that underpin the current debate. i say current debate, because, of course, much has changed in the gun control debate over the past couple of years. in 2008, in district on columbia v. heller the supreme court found for the first time in our history that the second
amendment protected an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense and not simply as a member of a militia. now let me pay tribute to cato's own bob levy, chairman the the kato institute, who was instrumeal in developing the strategy for that litigation and supporting the case all the way through to the supreme court. then just last year. the court found that the right was good against state and local restrictions as well. but in both cases, the court left open just what kinds of limits on the right to keep in bear arms might be permitted and that's the subject of litigation that's going on across the country today. and the main question that's before us day as well. but it does bring usack to politics, if mainly at the state and local level because the righted issue like all issues not absolute whatever that may
mean but subject to reasonable legislation designed to protect members of the public from exceptional risk, on one hand, and the right of individual the right to bear hands including self-defense on the other hand. that's a mixed question, one mighsay, of law a fact. so to discuss that questn we brought together an exceptional panel of experts who i'll introduce just before each of them speaks. as the federalist society in the cato institute usually do, we have both sides represented today. at lea insofar as one can speak of this issue in tha way. each speakerill address the issue for six to ten minutes. we'll, then, ask them to respond to each other's arguments after which we'll open the discussion up to questions from the audience and then retire upstairs in cato's winter garden for lunch. t's begin, then, with alan g gura at the law firm of gura and
possessky. the united states states district judge for the eastern district of north carolina. after that, as a deputy attorney general for the state of california, he dended the state and its emoyees from all manner of lawsuits in state and federal courts at trial and on appeal. thereafter, he entered the private practice of law at the washington, d.c. offices of sidly in austin. in february of 2000, he left the firm to serve for a year as counsel to the u.s. senate judiciary committee. alan's admitted to the bars of the district on columbia, virginia, and california, and has admitted to practice before the u.s. supreme court and numerous other federal courts. in 2009, he was named one of washington's top 40 lawyers under 40. and a champion of justice by legal times. he's a graduate of georgetown university law center and cornell university where he earned his b.a. in government with distinction in all subjects. please welcome alan gura.
>> thank you, roger, and i would like to thank the federalist society and cato for you coming here to hear us speak about these very important issues. it's been less thanix months since the supreme court issued its decision in mcdonald versus city of chicago and effectively gave us a green light to go ahead and see to what extent the second amendment applies to state and local government regulations that touch upon the issue of the possession and carrying and use of firearms. although it's been really such a short time since we've had this ticket to litigate as it were, many people are already trying to write the second amdment's obituary, decrying the fact that because no severe restrictions have yet been overturned, and because heller and mcdonald, itself, did n actually involve cases, involve anything beyond the possession of a handgun.
in the house, that means that the second amendment must be limited to its facts, and that we must all expect to have a rather limited form of this right going into the future. i ink tt this is not really the -- the appropriate approach to take. imagine if in january of 1955, brown v. board of education was declared to be a failure because there was still an awful lot of repression going on. obviouy, the federal courts move much slower than some of the rest of the world does today in the age of the internet and instant alysis. and we simply are at a point in time now where we have not yet had very many decisions, very many meaningful decisions, certainly not at the -- at the court of appeals level and in the federal system coming out of carefully crafted, strategic civil litigation. we have had a great deal of decisions in the lower courts. coming out of the sort of cases that would one expect if the immediate aftermath of a decision like heller or mcdonald, namely, criminal
cases, which are always on a faster track, that involve so much more far-fetched claims by people who are desperate to raise constitutional defenses and in whose counsel acquired zealously to act on their behalf. seek out any grounds that they may have to avoid criminal liability. the brady center used to have this page on their website where they had a long list of cases that explained why the second amendment secured only a collective right. well, most those cases were of course criminal cases of that ilk and it took some time for well-crafted civil litigation to address that topic. so to those people who would look at the wide array of -- of quickie, quick litigation in the lower court to say ah-ha. i would say, stay tud. we have many, many cases that are currently winding their way
up to the appellate courts. and we will, then, see exactly how far and why the second amendment actually does apply. when we get to is of those answers, i will caution advocates of gun rights that we're not going to in every case p it's not realistic to expect that the court will get every single second amendment case correctly. we don have that situation prevailing currently. in any other area of constutional law there's nobody out there that believes that every first amendment case decided by the supreme court was corrtly decided, or every single fourth amendment case was correctly decided by the supreme court. so the second amendment may not suddenly become a font of perfection. nonetheless, i believe that heller and mcdonald and some the development were in the lower case indicate that we'll see a robust and vigorous right that has a lot of actual application to people. the first thing to consider in looking at the framework of second amendment analysis is that not every case should be or
will be decided as a matter of means' end scrutiny, sort of a standard of review. the strategy of the other side is to look at every single second amendment case is one that necessarily calls upon the courts to engage in any balancing of interests, and then to apply what they call reasonable regulation which is another code essentially for rational basis review to that, and then of course because the courts will always defer to t intinations of the legislature. that's not really the framework nat supreme court has left us in heller in mcdonald. heller did not announce literally a standard of review, because it was not required by the case. it's a wonderful object lesson in the facts that you don't always need a standard of review. what did heller involved? heller involved a handgun ban, which is a question about, what classes of arms are protected or are not protected by the second
amendment. and devises to attest to tt and the so-called functional firearms ban. well that law clearly contradicted a core aspect the second amendment and so there was no need to review any sort of balancing st. it simply was in contradiction to a core aspect of the right. so those are two approaches that we're going to see in future cases. cases that challenge regulations, that bans certain weapons, or that mandate that arms have certain features in them are going to be adjudicated not upon a balancing a standard of review test but upon heller's common use test for what's a protected arm. some cases will fall by the wayside, if you simply ban an exercise of the right to arms or some aspect of it. for example, i'm currently litigating a case in which the -- the city of chicago has
banned people from using guns at a firing range. they've bannedun training. they've banned going to the range and practicing. where we believe that a core aspect of the second amendment, if you have the right to a gun, one of the obvious things that you would do with that gun is take it to the range and practice. and so that doesn't really require a standard of review necessarily to resolve. that case is on appeal. we look ford that. some jurisdictions ban entirely the carrying of arms in public. now that activity can be regulated but they cannot be banned entirely. again, that's -- that's a matter that doesn't -- that isn't going to require a balancing test. and to the extent that some of these jurisdictions impose licensing requirements that are applied in arbitrary capricious action. again that's not a balancing interest. that simply calls into play the supreme court's longstanding teachings about prior strength doctrines and since we've had a number of federal courts already adopt essentially first
amendment frameworks for the second mamt. we've seen the third and the fourth circuit do that explicitly. that prior restraint doctrine into the world of the second amendment. so again, standards of review are not going to solve everything. to the extent that some cases will have to be adjudicated on the basis of a means and standard review, the standard of review is not rational basis. however made that clear. we've already the fourth circuit find that it's either intermediate or upon strict scrutiny. and i expect that other courts will takmcdonald's instructions seriously that this is a fundamental right that fundamental rights are not afforded fundamental basis. they're taken seriously. and the government will have to carry some burden of showing that the laws serve narrowly a substantial or compelling governmental interest. so the future is bright. we have not yet had too many decisions. we're looking forward to the outcomes in a number of these
cases. and we'll see how it goes. i would like to briefly mention, if i have time, roger, in my initial comments. two challenges we do face that are quite serious in this field. the first challenge, we do sadly have a number of people out there who have taken upon themselves to litigate these cases a pro se basis. we have a lot of armchair constitutionalists, people who are bringing cases, perhaps that are not the best conceived or well considered. and they're meeting with the sort of results that one would expect. this is an area of law upon whh many people are deeply impassioned. and when people read on the internet some theory of the second amendment, a they feel excited about this and go plunk down their $300 at the federal courthouse and file a lawsuit, sometimes the results are not going to be great forecuring
this right in a meaningful way. the second problem we have i think is something that will be touched upon. when i go into a courthouse, and i'm representing someone who's claiming the right to carry a gun, oftentimes the judge may not be necessarily familiar with gun owners or with firearms. the clerks and the court may not be familiar with this world. and for us to try to show that this is a normal right, that normal people exercise and can be done in a safe and responsible manner, that mission is not helped with -- it's not helped by a lot of the more extreme rhetoric that's out there sometimes that we see some people espouse on the internet and other places. we live in a world where the camera will gravitate towards the most insane and extreme rhetoric that someone might speak. and when some fringe people become the face of gun
ownership, and the use of firearms, that is sort of a challenge for the rest of us to try to overcome. so that is something that, of course, weighs on our minds. of course,n america, you have the right to be anti-sial and do crazy things. no one would allenge that. but it i one of the head winds that we face as we do try to establish and secure a right which normal people safely enjoy. thanks. [ applause ] >> thank you, alan. now for something completely different. dennis henigan will speak next. he is vice president of the brady center to prevent gun violence. and founder of its legal action project. he's the author of "lethal logic, exploding the myths that paralyze american gun policy." for over 20 years, he's been a leading advocate for stronger gun laws, appearing dozens of times on national television and
radio, including "60 minutes," the "today" show, "nightline," and so forth. he's also had written and spoken extensively on liability and constitional issues relating to gun laws, and gun violence. including testifying before several congressional committees. he's a regular contributor to the "huffington post." under his direction, the brady center lawyers have recovered millions of dollars in damages for gun violence victims, as well as winning precedence-setting decisions on the liability of gun sellers. in 2004, he was named one of the top ten lawyers of the year, by lawyers weekly magazine. his work as a public interest lawyer has been in the new yorker. his law degree was from '77 from the virginia school of law. prior to joining the brady center in 1989, he was a partner in the law firm of foley and
lardner. please welcome dennis henigan. [ applause ] >> thank you, roger. and thank you all for being here. i noticed a generational difference between alan and myself. when he came up he brought a little laptop computerith him. i bring a notebook. what can i say. certainly the tragic shooting in tucson has made this program even more timely. but i think it also demands that we put our constitutional discussion in a broader context. cause our conflict today really can't be confined to constituonal theory. the scope of the second amendment has profound real world consequences. it has life-and-death cons fences. and as i see it, much of the debate about the second amendment is really a debate about two visions of america. one vision is literally guns in every corner of american society.
more guns in more american homes, more guns on the streets, more guns in restaurants, in coffee houses, in front of grocery stores, in educational institutions maybe even in the cato institute. and i think a lot of the litigation we see out here is an effort to achieve through the courts that vision of america. there is, however, a competing vision, and that is the vision which allows responsible citizens to have guns in the home for self-defense, but allows government to impose reasonable restrictions to try to prevent those guns from being accessed by dangerous individuals. and the real world consequences of those competing visions were ma starkly clear by the tragedy in tucson. the state of arizona has largely realized the vision of guns everhere. it some years ago eliminated all law enforcement discretion over who gets a concealed to carry
permit. it recently became the third state in the country to require no concealed carry permit. arizona's gun laws were so weak, that if the shooter's community college officials had reported to the tucson police his dangerous behavior, the police under arizona law would have had no power to prevent him from carrying a concealed weapon. and the sidewalk in front of that safeway was not a gun-free zone. indeed, the shooter himself was a law-abiding citizen. he had passed a background check. he was a legal carrier of a concealed weapon, up until the time he pulled the trigger. on the other hand, if the alternative vision of reasonable restrictions had been in place, there would have at least been a law on the books limiting the capacity of the ammunition magazine tt the shooter used. and he would not have been able
to fire 32 rounds in 15 seconds without having to pause to reload. only when he had to pause to reload was he subdued. there is no question that the absence of such a law led to greater death and serious injury in that shooting. now, i believe that the supreme court rulings in heller and mcdonald are far more consistent with the reasonable restriction vision of america than with the guns everywhere vision. first of all, the right announced in heller is quite narrow in scope. it is, according to justice scalia, the right of law-abiding, responsible citins to have arms in defense of hearth and home. making it irresponsible for citizens to get guns should not run afoul of the second amendment and not have a gun outside the home.
and as a matter of fact, federal and state courts so far, in seven states and the district of columbia, have rejected the proposition that heller implies a right to have a gun outside the home. and i think this is an implicit recognition that clearly the government's interest in regulating guns is even greater when they are carried outside the home. there are substantial risks associated with guns in the home, when the gun owner takes those risks out into the community governments' interests are even stronger. in addition to narrowly defining the right, scalia's opinion went out of its way to make clear that the right is not absolute, and includes extraordinary language, actually discussing gun laws not even at issuen the heller case. justice scalia wrote that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on several broad categories of gun laws, including laws placing
conditions on the sale of guns, laws completely banning concealed weapons, not just licensing them, banning them, laws regulating the storage of guns in the home to prevent accidents, and several other categories were mentioned and he said those categories were not exclusive. now, in the wake of tucson, we have actually seen support for one reasonable and constitutional restriction come from a very unlikely source. bob levy, the chair of the cato institute, and kind of the godfather of the heller case, has said thathe doesn't think a restriction on high-capacity magazines would violate the second amendment. so when i can agree with bob levy on anything having to do with guns, maybe it's a new day. we estimate that there have been so far about 300 second amendment challenges filed since heller. and so far helr and mcdonald
have proved to be much more pop guns than assault weapons as weapons against gun laws. a wide variety of laws have been upheld. bans on possession of guns by felons, bans on possession by domestic violence misdemeanors, by persons under restraining orders, bans on machine guns, bans on semiautomatic assault weapons, restrictions onguns on college campuses, the list goes on and on. and in fact, probably the most far-reaching decision is the decision by a federal judge in the district of columbia to uphold the laws in this community that were enacted after heller, laws that all law-abiding citizens to have guns in the home but are still the most restrictive laws in the country upheld in their entirety by a federal judge. so generally speaking, courts have taken those assurances and justice scalia's opinion about the gality of gun laws very,
very seriously. and the vast majority of courts have been highly defer rengs to legislative decision-making on guns. they have either found that the scalia created categories are basically safe harbors, so that if a law falls withinhe category, or is analogous to it is upheld, or they have held that those -- that section of the heller opinion is inconsistent with the idea of strict scrutiny and have used a much more deferential scrutiny test. i think alan's going to talk about standardf review more. the one comment i would make about the standard of review issue is this. it is that there is a tendency to kind of jump to a first amendment analogy here. and i think it should be resisted. i think the first amendment has some things to teach us about the second amendment. but i don't think we should be locked into the first amendment
categories, simply because, frankly, the second amendment is a very different kind of right. the right to have a gun in the home for self-defense increases the risk of physical injury in a way that no other provision of our bill of rights does. a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide in the home by three-fold. the risk of suicide in the home by five-fold. in addition, it's been shown that communities that have a higher incidence of -- the highest incidence of gun ownership have far higher homicide rates in communities than states with the lowest rates of gun ownership. so there is a connection here. the more people who exercise this right, the greater the hazard to the individual, the family and the community. and that simply has to be recognized. you simply cannot say that about the first amendment. and what ihink that means is, that the second amendment should be regarded as, to some extent,
generous. it is like no other right. it is, in my view, the most dangerous right. and i think that it demands its own unique constitutional jurisprudence, that is highly deferential to the very, very difficult judges, that the elected officials have to make as they seek to form you late policies that will prevent future tucsons and that will reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in this country that now takes 80 of our fellow citizens' lives every day. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, dennis. and want to thank our first two speakers for coming in exacy on time. i say that in light of the fact that we now turn to academics. >> i have 50 minutes, don't i? >> we're goingo hear next from professor nelson lund, who is
the patrick henry professor of constitutional law in the second amendment. at george mason university law school. he's written widely in the field of constitutional law, including articles on constitutional interpretation, separation of powers, the second amendment, the commerce clause, the speech or debate clse, equal protection clause, uniformity clause. in addition, he's published articles in the fields of employment discrimination and civil rights, the legal regulation of medical ethics, the application of economic analysis, to legal institutions and legal ethics. professor lund left the faculty of the university of chicago to attend its law school, where he served as executive director of -- executive editor of the university of chicago law review. and charter chairman -- chapter chairman of the federalist society on public policy. after law school he held positions in the united states department of justice, in the office of solicitor general, office of legal counsel. he also served as a law clerk to
the honorable patrick higenbotham, the court of appeals for the fifth circuit and sandra day o'connor. following his clerkship with justice o'connor, he served in the white house as associe counsel to the president from 1989 to 1992. please welcome professor nelson lund. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, roger. it's an honor to be here. my talk is going to be a little academic. i'll try not to go over my time limit too long, though. after the heller decision was announced, there was a lot of celebrating by gun rights advocates, and by proponents of the interpre tiff theory of realism. that was understandable. heller was the first significant victory for gun rights in the history of the supreme court. and the majority opinion is filled to the brim with the rhetoric of originalism and detail to historical senses.
i just wish it were all true. but i'm afraid this reminds me of a little bit of th celebrations of the court's commerce clause decisions in lopez and morrison. heller was an important test case for the interpretive theory. there s no supreme court precedence, certainly none that could be considered dispositive. this was also a good test case for originalism, because the send amendment poses some genuine puzzles. its text uniquely explains a command. what it says is a well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. what is the importance of a well regulated militia have to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. one usually thinks of constitutional rights as obstacles to regulation. not spurs to regulations. and it's not immediately
evident, at least the typical 21st century readers, how this right of the people would contribute to the establishment or preservation of a well-regulated militia. a different kind of puzzle arises from changes in the world since 1791. the militia organizations ex tolled by the founding generation have withered away and advances in the technology of weaponry have produced arms that are far more dangerous than anything that was available in the founding era. and how do these developments affect the applicability of the send amendment to modern society. heller was a good test case for originalism for yet another reason. the inion was assigned to the court's most prominent exponent of the jurisprudence, justice scalia. thanks to a large body of scholarly terature written over the past 30 years, scalia successfully made a powerful case for two important
propositions. first, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual private right, not a right of the state's organized militias. second, the purpose of the right is to enable individuals to exercise their inherent or natural right of self-defense, including the right to defend themselves against criminal violence. but that's not enough to resolve the initial about the relationship between the pref a tory language of the second amendment and its operative clause. scalia trieso do this, as any originalist must, but his analysis is full of fallacies and absurdities. he provides no tenable explanation of the meaning of the reference of a well regulated militia in the constitutional text or provides any evidence of any kind about the proper scope of the right of people to keep and bear arms. the most difficult text question which scalia never even addresses is how codifying the right to arms could have been
expected to preserve, promote or prevent the elimination of a well regulated militia. i believe there's a perfectly good answer to that question. but no answer of any kind wll be found in scalia's opinion. and that is a very, very serious shortcoming, in a judicial opinion that purports to rely as heavily as scalia's does on tex actual analysis and originalist interpretive principles. scalia's failure to identify any textual of the second amendment right has spectacular effects when he addresses the heller case itself. namely, whether the d.c. handgun ban was unconstitutional. the court concluded that it was unconstitution al, but the only reason scalia offers are that handguns are popular weapons for self-defse among americans today. and that he thinks there are good reasons handguns are popular. that is not a historical or
originalist argument. if it's any kind of argument at all, it's probably a disguise in inmplete form of the qua si legislative living constitution interest balancing approach that scalia disdainfully dismisses elsewhere in his opinion. it's very striking that scalia abandons any realism when he addresses the question actually presented in the case. what's even more striking is that he also includes a series of astounding and unnecessary comments endorsing various forms of gun control that were not at issue in the case. scalia does not provide a shred of legitimate historical evidence to support any of these conclusions, to the extent that he gives any reasons at all, they're based on blatant mischaracterizations of the historical evidence on plainly inapplicable decisions of state courts and in one case on interpreting a prior sreme court decision to mean the opposite of what it says. in a narrow sense, the
constitutionalist is vindicated in heller because the court reached an easily defensible originalist result. but the court's reasoning a critical point so defective and transparently nonoriginalist i some respects, that i think heller should be seen as an embarrassment for every justice who joins the majority opinion. now, heller applies the federal laws like the one in the district of columbia. in mcdonald the court's decision held the same principles applied to state and local governments. mcdonald presented the court wi a more difficult question than it faced in heller. it could follow its due process in corporation precedence, which have absolutely no basis in the text or history of the constitution, or it could go back to first principlesnd examine its very dubious decisions under the privileges or immunities clause. but that's a slightly larger framework. the th amendment, which if
anything applies to the second amendment to the state that has to be the 14th amendment. it includes two different clauses. and applying other provisions of the bill of rights, to the state that the court has relied on the due process clause, which there's no basis anywhere in the text orhistory of the 14th amendment and has ignored the privileges or immunities clause in that context. at the oral argument it was pretty clear where the justices were headed. the challengers of the chicago law was represented by alan gura. and he started out by arguing that chicago's law violates the original meaning of the privileges or immunities clause. and who do you think interrupted him to ridicule him for making this argument. none other than mr. original meeting himself, anthony scalia. here's what he said. why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law when y can reach your result under substantive due process? i know unless you're bucking for someplace in a law school
faculty. the nastiest thing you can say to a lawyer. as if that weren't enough, scalia soon followed up with this mocking comment. well, i mean, what you argue is the darling of the prov esor yat for sure. but it's contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as i think it's wrong, even i have acquiesced in it. so justice scalia's position seems to be something like this. ignoring the original meaning of the constitution is an outrage, except wn i've acquiesced in it. and en i've acquiesced in it, it's time for everybody to stop wasting our time in talking about originalism. great. in the end,our justices applied the court's due process precedence and in a perfectly stightforward and respectable way. oddly, however, the opinion for
the four justices also makes a series of arguments designed to show that the court's decision is consistent with the original meaning of the 14th amendment. those arguments are all bogus, and in some cases just shockingly bogus. justice conlis tried to apply the immunities clause and he got exactly zero support from anybody else. but perhaps the worst aspect of the alito opinion is it's entirely gratuitous reaffirmation of heller's irresponsible endorsement of vaous forms of gun control that were not at issue in either case. so what can we expect in the future. my own guess is that we'll see a great many poly reasoned, lower court decisions, largely upholding various kinds of gun control regulations. and we'll see an occasional intelligent effort to apply a
sound legal analysis imposed by heller and mcdonald. there will probably be so victories for second amendment rights in the lower courts, and maybe we'll see some eventually in the supreme court as well. what i do not expect, however, are any victories for the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. at least in the supreme court. if the jurisprudence of the second amendment goes in the direction that i hope it will go, it will have to be because at least five justices recognize the soal value of the free citizen's right to keep and bear arms. if they get to liking this ght, as much as they like the right of free speech, the second amendment will be in pretty good shape. but i don't think there are an awful lot of encouraging signs in the heller and mcdonald opinions. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, alan. i think.
nelson, i mean. we're now going to hear from alan morrison to wrap things up in our first round. alan is the learner family associate dean for public interest and public service law and professorial lecturer in law at the george washington university law school. he received his undergraduate degree from yale college and law degree from harvard law school. he served as a commissioned officer in the u.s. navy, his early legal career includes working as anattorney, and as an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. in 2004, alan retired from public citizen to work at stanford law school as a senior leurer on administrave and public interest law. he's taught at several law schools including harvard, american university, new york university, tu lane university, and china's fudan university.
alan teamed up with ralph nader in 1972 to found and direct the public citizen litigation group, the litigation arm of the consumer advocacy group public citizen. over the span of his career, he has argued 20 cases before the united states supreme court. please welcome alan morrison. [ applause ] >> thank you. a couple of preliminary matters. first, i first came to a program at the cato institute in somewhat less august surroundings than this. as i recall, the institute was in theasement of a small townhouse on 2nd street southeast. and i was there because i, like the people at the cato institute, believed that many of the restrictions then and still today as to the unauthorized practice of law harmed consumers by creating artificial barriers to the delivery of low-cost services to people who could not afford to have lawyers. i was proud to be there then,
and i'm pleased and proud to be here today. the second point that needs to be made is, you wondered why am i here. besides the fact that i was invited. i'm here because, for a brief period of time after i left stanford, i worked at the attorney general's office for the district of columbia, and i was scheduled to argue the heller case. i in fact had been significantly involved in writing the brief in the heller case, and my boss and the mayor and the mayor's counsel had a difference of opinion as to the respective roles of the mayors, counsels and attorney general, and she sensibly resigned and i got fired as a result of it. the day the brief was about to be filed. so i didn't get to argue the case at all. i know who my friends are. they say to me, alan, if you had only argued that case you would have won. and i said, dream on. there was no chance. justice scalia it made up his mind. all right.
now, one thing i did when i was drafting the brief, and this brief wa largely the work of others who came before me on the case and who worked with me in drafting the brief. the one word i would not allow, and i've won this battle, to appear anyplace in our brief was the word clear. as in the second amendment history clearly says this, the text clearly says that. i said, it would be a de riggs of all ofthe trees that had fallen as a result of second amendment scholarship for anybody to think that the answer was clear. and yet, justice scalia thought the answer was clear. but then again so did justice stevens. and they both said it was clear. if there's one thing that's clear about it, is it's not clear. all right. now, there is one argument that we made that on the basic second amendment doesn't apply to the militia, as opposedto does it apply to individual right to bear arms. and i don't intend to rehearse,
or relitigate that issue here today. but there was an argument we made which i don't think we made as fully as i would have wanted have made it. and that is, people would say, well, it's in the bill of rights. therefore, it must be like all the rest of the parts of the bill of rights. and there is an answer to that why was it in the bill of rights, and the answer is, because, and i think this is pretty clear, that madison, who was in charge of the bill of rights, said one thin we are not going to touch the body of the constitution. we are not going to do it because that would reopen all of the compromises that have come before it. and so while i am agreed to allow additions to the constitution, nobody's going to go back and touch it. and that's the reason that the second amendment was not put back into article 1, sections 15 and 16, which do talk about militias. and so tre is a good solid
explation for that. as to why it's not treated like the bill of rights. now, am i talking about that just to make an argument here today, that the decision was wrong? no. because i think that fact has continuing validity as we go forward. and as the argument that is made, well, this is like the first amendment. and it's not like the first amendment, because for the historic reason i gave ou, and second, to repeat a phrase that my mother told me many times when i was a boy growing up, sticks and stones can break your bones, but names will never hurt you. ala, first amendment is not equal to the second amendment. guns can hurt people. first amendment words may annoy you, antagonize you, but they cannot hurt you in the same way that guns can hurt you. all right. i disagree with justice scalia's determination, but it is certainly not an unreasonable determination th the second amendment applies to greater --
to something else other than the militia. my biggest objection to his opinion is what followed afterwards in the ten pages or so he dealt with the issue before the court. now, would it such that alan gura said earlier today, that the only decisionhat was made there was that you had a right to an operative gun in your home. one the problems with the district of columbia's law, and this really didn't get played out until we got to the supreme court, was that not simply did it forbid you from having a handgun in your home, which would have been one thng, but they had this strange interlock no-load law, and nobody, i mean nobody, in the district, in the police, had ever focused on what it was supposed to mean and how it was supposed to operate in the real world. because the problem was, that that part of the law applied not just to handguns, but it also applied to all forms of firearms. meaning that you couldn't have a loaded rifle in your home.
well, we conceded that rifles were protected, that that was an alternative to handguns. and therefore, it was appropriate means ofdefense as opposed to handguns which were not in our view an appropriate means of self-defense. it had all the negative things that rifles and shotguns did not have. by the way, this view about rifles and shotguns being adequate was not my idea or that of anybody in the district. we found this idea in a debate in a magazine that i normally do not read called "guns and ammo" in wch the fight was about whether a shotgun or a rifle was the better means of defending yourself at home. we thought any evely, it appears, that just because the gun people thought that was the appropriate debate, thatby definition, having a handgun was okay, and was certainly within the realm of legislative reasonableness. we were obviously wrong about at. but if the -- so if narrowly defined, that is, if a court wanted to reach the nar ohhest
possible grounds for deciding this indication, it could have said the right to an operative weapon in the home, including a handgun, is all -- is what's protected by the first amendmt. they could have done that. there would have been no dicta. there would have been none of these examples in there. now, why didn't the court do that. why didn't the court follow what it always says as w decide the case before us. we can ask all the lawyers all the nasty hypotheticals in oral arguments. we decide this case, and this case only. and we can think about the next case but we don't have to decide it. well, what did justice scalia do. he put in a series of examples of laws that are presumptively constitutional. why do you suppose he did that. does he violate his premise that we do not normally put lots of dicta in there? i don't think so. i think he did it for one very
big reason. that's how he got five votes. because some of the members of the court woulhave been decidedly uneasy with not saying anything else about it. as it was, the victors in the case, that i do congratulate the victors in the case, were able to say, well, see, we haven't wreaked complete havoc on the universe yet. all these laws are protected. all right. so this dicta is terribly serious as a problem for the reason i'm about to come to, which is, how does he decide that these laws are okay. he doesn't tell us. he just simply announces his conclusion. and so usually what we do is we can tell whether a law is okay becae we have a standard of review. how strictly are we going to construe the constitutional right in this particular case. indeed, this standard of review which sounds like some lawyer's language is one of the rules that the federal courts of appeal require in every brief. you have to state the standard
of riew applicable to the decision below that you are seeking review of before the court can decide the merits of the case. what does justice scalia say about it? he said it doesn't matter. well, it may not matter with respect to the right actually at issue with this case. but it surely matter if you're going to define the rest of the rits. so for example, suppose we have strict scrutiny applied. many people, probably here in this room, some on the podium, would support strict scrutiny. well, if we have strict scrutinyjust take the laws about felons. unable to have firearms. martha stewart is a convicted felon. so is scooter libby. so is, of course, al capone. all of them were convicted of white-collar crimes, nothing involving violence. if strict scrutiny is applied, why is that law not overbroad. i don't have an answer.
but i didn't include the dicta. similarly, if somebody is convicted of domestic violence by threatening another person with a firearm, and they plead to a misdemeanor, why should the label misdemeanor as opposed to the label felon automatically take it from one side of the equation to the other. and i suggest to you that unless we get the standard of review right, or even get a standard of review, we cannot responsibly answer the questions that are going to come up in the laws that are being litigated now. just two final words, and then i will sit down. one is, i sympathize with the problem that alan is facing, trying to control all these out-of-control people who are armchair nstitutionalists. it was a wonderful thing, perhaps not such a wonderful thing when brown versus board of education was decided that there was nobody other than naacp out there trying to look for cases to litigate. so you didn't haveo worry
about all these spurious legal theories because there were no lawyers lling to take on these cases let alone any funding for them at all, and the pro ses of course were not around at that time. in the way that they are now. and the send is, he has lost control over the litigation for another reason, and that is, as he pointed out, defense counsel in criminal cases have a legal obligation to raise the second amendment every time it possibly comes up. and of course, proponents of the second amendment, thatis exactly the wrong context in which they want the send amendment issue litigated. so as a legal strategist, he and i are in the same category for that, i applaud his decision to go after the restriction on testing of firearms, and i don't know anything else about the law. if you have a firearm, you ought to be able to learn to use it safely. but he's going to lose the strategic battles along the way. but it have been interesting to
see what happens. and once, and if we get the standard of review stightened out, we'll have a better idea of which laws will stand and which laws will fall. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, alan. okay. now we're going to have our second round -- brief second round. would ask each of our panelists to keep his remarks very brief indeed. let's start in the order, go in the order in which we spoke. alan, would you like -- from the -- right from your seat there. >> sure. well, very briefly, to respond to some of the things dennis had said. we do see a lot of this type of argument from dennis' group and others that the decision in heller must be limited to its facts. well, that's not exactly how our system works. the court's decision in marbury versus madison was not limited to the deliveryf judicial commissions. it had a broader principle behind it. in the heller case and mcdonald
there was an announcement by the court that the second amendment secures a fundamental right and this right is to defined with reference to the way in which it was understood by the people who framed it. there is absolutely no argument that i have seen or heard from anyone that americans in 1791 or 1868 understood the second amendment to extend no further than the home. i haven't even seen the alleged evidence for this proposition. it's true that heller and mcdonald didn't have those applications. but it's fairly clear that heller and mcdonald decided that they'd like to keep and bear arms, was actually a right to keep and carry arms, as the heller case repeatedly says. this is something that was foisted upon the supreme court in heller. the dstrict of columbia insisted that bear arms had this exclusive military meaning, meaning to soldier to go ahead and participate in some kind of state-sanctioned military
activity. the supreme court rejected that. and it gave a very different definition for that same word. they said, no, bear,imply met to carry. and certain other courts, lower courts have found that language useful, and in some cases. so i don't see the right is going to be cabined to the home any more than the fact that h l heller and mcdonald said shotguns are not protected. so again, we don't read these decisions as being limited to their facts. we read them as standing for broader constitutional principles. and we're going to see a meaningful right evolve from that. >> thank you, alan. dennis? >> well, i guess my point on the question of guns outside the home is that there really is nothing in heller to suggest that the right extends beyond the home. and the formulation of the right
in heller clearly is confined to the home. it is the right to keep and cay guns within e home. and for those who may argue that, to say bear means carry, therefore, decides the issue of whether there is a right outside the home, i would just remind them that when t heller court granted relief to mr. heller, towards the end of scalia's opinion, it said the district of columbia must allow mr. heller to register his gun, and then issue him a license to carry it within his home. so the heller decision itself contemplates the possibility that the right to keep and bear arms is a right to have and carry a gun within the home. i think it is, in terms of original intent, i think it is very telling that actually the only category of presumptively
legal laws, which the court in heller actually commented was established by the historical record, was the ban on concealed carry. that was the one that the court said went all the way back to the founders. and to me, that strongly suggests that there is a basis to confine the heller right to the home. thank you. >> thank you, dennis. nelson? >> okay. i just want to make a couple of short points. one, in response to dennis remark a moment ago about scalia havingaid that bans on concealed carry go all the way back to the founders. it's true he tried to suggest that. he didn't quite say it. he included a long string site in his opinion to add to that impression that he was saying that, if you go actually read the case, it doesn't establish any such thing.
the other short point i want to make is in response to alan morrison's comments about the standard of review. for those of you who aren't lawyers and aren't familiar with this, the standard of review is basically a formula that courts use to express how much deference is given to legislatures when reviewing the constutionality of various challenged laws. and they've developed a whole kind of hierarchy of standards of review. the lowest one -- the highest one is strict scrutiny. the lowest one, the one that gives the most deference to legislation is rational basis. then they have rational basis with bite, and one with two and a half bites. that's a joke. and intermediate scrutiny and all of this stuff. members of the supreme court on both sides of the ideological divide have saidfor a long time that these formulas don't really
tell you how cases are decided. they're used to justify decisions made on other grounds. there's a lot of evidence to support that. my favorite is the oeder desion involving affirmative action at the university of michigan law school, where they purported to apply strict scrutiny, the one that gives least deference to the legislature. when you read the analysis, it is indistinguishable from the least deference to legislature. the fact that the supreme court didn't articulate a standard of review or choose among the plethora of possibilities in their jurisprudence doesn't seem to me particularly significant. because if they had, it probably uldn't have told us all that much anyway. >> thank you. alan? >> two quick points. one, alan may be sure that shotguns will be upheld, but he's got to explain to me why sawed-off shotguns are not
upheld in terms of originalism. because that's what the court in 1937. the second, the question on standard review sounds lawyerly. and it is. but what's underlying at stake here is the question of how much deference should be given to legislatures when they are trying to make predictive judgments whether society as a whole would be better off with one law or another or one variation rather than another. and in general, we allow legislatures to make those kind of choices, when we think that the legislative process is likely to work reasonably well, that the affected interests are likely to be heard, and that for better or worse, the decision is one that's within the realm of reasonableness for most people. and it doesn't mean that the legislative choice has to be e same in arizona, or texas, as it
is in the district of columbia or new york city. it seems to me that guns, and the regulation of them, are quintessentially legislative matters. as roger said at the beginning, the gun debate has been part of our political debate for years. and in my view, it should have been kept there. and it should remain there within some very wide range of reasonableness for legislatures to do what they think is best. and that the court should grant deference, because there's no reason to think that gun enthusiasts anothers who are supporting broad gun rights are not adequately represented and do not have adequate access to the legislators who are making the decisions in this case. there is no chance of a breakdown in democracy, in other words, and for that reason, no need for the court to aggressively step in, and protect those who lose in the legislative arena. >> now we're going to open up the discussion to those of you in the audience. please raise your hand.
identify yourself and any affiliation that you may have. and also, identify the speaker to whom your question is directed. let's start with this gentleman right here in front, who has his hand up. >> i'm a police lieutenant from new jersey. i have a very keen -- >> your name? >> steven rogers. i'm curious about something. the -- both sides of the argument, very good. however, mr. gura, you talked about the fringes seem to be getting all the publicity, and there's a problem with that. but mr. henigan, you said something that i think resonates with the american people. and it's something important that i think has to be expounded upon. by the way, i am a second amendment believer. okay? i believe in the right to bear arms. but mr. henigan, you used a word that i think needs to be used quite often, and that is responsible gun ownership. so i have a queson for you, and then a question for you, mr.
gura. am i to leave here today beliing that your side, for more intents and purposes, are in favor of the second amendment, however, as long as it is a responsible second amendment, as long as we have responsibility gun ownership, d then mr. gura, if that is the case, then why isn't our side, all right, in fact i came in here saying should i identify them as the right and the left, but then why can't we jump onboard and say, look,t's okay. 're fighting for second amendment rights. however, they're saying the se thing we're saying, b the word responsible needs to be injected in the argument. so what do i leave here today really concluding? thanks. >> that's an excellent, excellent question. and it's a question that i actually do address at length in my book "lethal logic." because i've been at this for over 20 years. and a key strategy of the gun
lobby is to make the debate about banning guns. that is the way they make the debate most polarizing. it's the way they raise a lot of money. and part of that strategy is to argue that those of us, like the brady organization, who do not advocate the handgun ban, but do advocate reasonable controls, are really being disingenuous. this debate, the nra will tell you, isn't about waiting periods, and it'sot about limiting ammunition magazine capacity. these people really want to ban your guns. they really want to come after your guns. now, that's not to say that there are not americanswho believe that guns should be banned, or handguns should be banned. there are. the polls show that. it's a distinct minority view. but it is not our view. and the slippery slope argument gets us into trouble. because every time someone cos forward and says, well, can't we
at least require background checks for all gun sales. we've got them for sales by licensed dealers. they're working. they could work better. but the brady bill has stopped about 1.9 million prohibited gun buyers. most of them felons, from buying guns over the counter. let's take that success story and extend it to all private transactions at gun shows, and even elsewhere. it seems like a reasonable proposal. but the response is, oh, that's just a step down the slippery slope. well, it was my hope, frankly, that after heller, and as a constitutional matter, i think heller was wrongly decided. but nevertheless, i said heller is a paradox. because even thoh it was wrongly decided from a legal standpoint, i was hopeful that it would, by taking gun banning sort of off the policy table, which is -- that was scalia's term, certain measures are off the table now, banning guns is
off the table, we would somehow diminish the power of the slippery slope argument to adversely affect the nature of the debate. most americans, and most gun owners, are in favor of these reasonable controls. recent polls show over 80% of gun owners want background checks for all gun sales. so do we. we ought to be able to come together on this kind of thing. >> alan? >> well, nobody goes out and supports the idea that we should have unreasonable laws, and that people should be allowed to be irresponsible. obviously the debate is about what is unreasonable and what is irresponsible. and our sidef the debate believes that you do in fact have a meaningful constitutional right to have and use firearms. which means that the burden is on the government to show, or on your own, we can't protect public safety even to the degree that we normally do, even though, of course, they're not required to do so. that is the time when people
should most have access to the means of self-defense. they think it's okay to disarm people when society breaks down. so, of course, we disagree on those things. but eaking personally for myself, i would not take a second amendment case that tries to vindicate something that i believe is constitutionally within the government's power, or otherwise irresponsible. so i'm not going to take cases that claim that it's perfectly fine for mentally disturbed violent felons toave guns. you're not goi to see me for a right to have the vending machines at junior high schools selling ammunition. we don't do that kind of thing. but at the same time, i would posit that our view of what is reasonable is much more consistent with the traditional american understanding of the responsible use of firearms than the prohibitionist, minimalist view that dennis would espouse.
>> next question? yes? >> i don't know what reasonable and responsible laws are. my view is that that's why we have legislatures, and they ought to decide those rather than have courts decide what's reasonable and responsible. at least in most cases. >> so in other words -- >> substantial legislative -- >> you left the door open. >> yes, of course. we have a right. there's no question about that. and if the district of columbia passed a law, the purpose was to send something through the back door that was prohibited through the front door, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. but i'm rfectly willing to give the legislature the opportunity here, dennis and alan, argue what the particulars of a particular law, and decide it the way we decided it, by having the legislators vote on it and having the mayor or governor decide whether to sign it. >> david ritgers in the back, standing up.
>> dave ritgers, cato institute. my question is for mr. henigan and mr. gura. first, to clarify a couple of points, mr. henigan, your characrization is a little off. in fact, the phoenix shooter was not law-abiding until he pulled the trigger. he lied to purchase the gun. i'm not sure why you place such focus on having a gun-free zone sign there if he would disregard the laws against murder. moving on to discretionary permitting, which you recommend, it essentially means either that all permits are denied, the situation we've seen in the willlard case in maryland is litigating, or the discretion that are objectionable. in los angeles county, or new york, these are essential sold for campaign contributions. or used in a discretionary manner, such as the one that martin luther king mng applied for. after a bombing of his house in
1956, he applied for a permit and it was designed for, i think, what are pretty plain reasons given the atmosphere in alabama, under their discretionary permitting system. so if it's from having no right, or is it a right that can be refused in anrbitrary manner, how is that constitutional or defensible? >> i guess my answer is supposed to be briefer than the question. but that's a little bit of a challenge. the point i was trying to make about loughner is that the nra's program is to eliminate law enforcement discretion over who gets a permit. so that if you pass a background check, and he did, when you say he lied on the form, it's not at all clear to me that he fell into one of the prohibited categories. the point is, the nra says if he passes a backgrnd check, and he's a legal gun owner, they
don't even want to impose an additional permitting requirement. that means he was a legal carrier under arizona law until he pulled the trigger. and that is the nra's vision of what's supposed to happen across the country. if you can pass a background check, then you can carry a conceal. and it is a policy which is folly. and this horrendousvent shows the folly of it. the folly of it has been shown before. this just dramatizes the folly of it. and certainly, the question of an arbitrary and capricious use of government power to deny a concealed weapons permit, there may be a remedy of law for that. i'm not arguing that government should be free of civil remedies when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously. i am arguing, however, that it is folly to take all the discretion away from law
enforcement, if a law enforcement has discretion, if they look to somebody's background, you know, and they interview people who know the applicant, and they might have interviewed the community college people and learned all these facts about this guy, they would have been in a position to make him not a leg concealed carry holder. and thatould have been -- that's just a much betterlegal system to treat this issue. >> nnis, may i ask you very quickly, has the brady center taken a position on presumptions? in other words, is the presumption that you have a right, and then the burden is uponhe government to show why you should not in this case exercise it? or is it the other way around that you don't have a right, and the burden is upon the applicant to show why he should get the permit? >> i don't know that we've taken a position on that. i mean, that is sometng that we would leave, i think, to state law. but the requirement that
government act without being arbitrary or capricious is a fundamentalrinciple of law that would apply to concealed carry permits. i would add on the issue of presumptions, scalia'sse of the trum presumptively legal when discussing broad categories of gun laws raises an interesting question about burden of proof. normally, you know, it's -- you know, the presumption is with the individual and against the government. but here, that use of that language raises interesting questions about whether the supreme court views it differently when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. >> alan, did you want to say something? >> first of all, as far as scalia's presumptive language, the reference is to carrying of arms in sensitive places. we don't know what sensitive places are. i suppose we all may have views about how the court can explore that. the suggestion tt you can be banned from carrying arms in sensitive places is the exception that proves the rule that you must be allowed to
carry them in non-sensitive places. the supreme court has also approved the right to keep and bear arms outside the home activities as hunting, practicing at a range, i don't know too many people who go hunting with firearms inside their homes. against smaller creatures. and of course, in dennis' favorite case, u.s. versus miller, it concerned the application of a sawedoff shotgun, because mr. miller was driving it on the highways in arkansas, it was not inside hi home. the reason the supreme court told the district of columbia that they had to issue helle a license to carry his gun in the homes because that's the only kind of license for which he applied. d.c. law had essentially two different licensing requirements. there was a license to carry publicly, and if you carried
publicly, without the benefit of a license, that was a felony conviction. if you carried inside your own home without the benefit of a license, that was a misdemeanor. we challenged that law, and because we challenged the carrying in the home law, that's the way the language of that came out. and of course, washington immediately repealed the carrying in the home licensing requirement. now, as far as the question raised by the questioner, the supreme court has a long tradition of requiring that in prior restraint cases, the licensing of the exercise of a fundamental right not be left to the unfettered discretion of a censing official. we need clear standards, objective standards that are narrowly defined, that tell licensing officials when they shall and shall not issue permits. i don't have a problem with subjecting the right to carry firearms to an appropriate
licensing standard. and in most states, in fact, do have perfectly constitutional laws about that. however, when it's simply a matter of whether the officials believe you have good cause, to exercise your constitutional right, that's clearly unconstitutional. if you have the right to do something, your right to do it cannot be denied, because the government doesn't think you have a good enough reason to exercise your constitutional right. that is a classic form of prior restraint. and i can give you, in fact, in some of the briefs i do provide chapter and verse, case upon case upon case where the supreme court has thrown out any kinds of licensing standards that rest upon these vague notions of what's in theublic benefit, or when you actually need to exercise your right and all that kind of inappropriate language. >> this gentleman right here. st wait until the microphone is there. >> richard rise, private citizen from silver spring.
what hasn't been discussed at all, and it's sort of indicated by what's going on in mexico now, that maybe it's the gun industry that needs some regulation. and the first amendment -- i mean, the second amendment doesn't really come in there. we just say you can't make aka-47s except under very limited circumstances, and you can't develop -- i don't even know what they're called -- the bullets without letting your finger off the trigger. and that that's the answer to it, then it has nothing to do with the second amendment. you just regulate the industry. >> well, since we're here to discuss the second amendment, does anybody have a brief comment on that? >> yes, i think that's a very important topic that the questioner has brought up. there is a great deal that needs to be done to regulate the gun
industry. and, you know, so many of the policy ideas that need to be discussed really do not have anything to do with the second amendment. you know, there's no second amendment right to sell guns to straw buyers for drug cartels. there's no second amendment right to a very weak bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. we need to give the agencies greater power to crack down on corrupt dealers. we need to limit the number of handguns that can be sold at any one time to reduced gun traffic. we need to ban assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines. there are so many of these kinds of sensible policies that would save countless lives. and there simply is no argument that they violate the second amenent or set us on a slippery spe toward gun confiscation. >> the gentleman with his hand up in the front row, of the
back. >> thank you. my name is orge lawrence. i'm a semi-retired psychologist. i'm an avid hunter and self-protectionist. one quick comment and one i think pretty quick question. it seems to me that it's absurd to talk about bearing arms within the home. as if you're going to walk around, marching around carrying a home. for better or worse, i think it's pretty obvious that's what it means, to carry a gun arnold. the question i have is having noticed and appalled at it, spokes people for gun organizations asserting the necessity for the private ownership of assault rifles with high-capacity magazines, justified by thomas jefferson's regrettable comment as a way to prevent encoaching government, makes me wonder whether there's any substantial body of legal
opinion that supports a constitutional right to prepare for med iurrection. >> nelson, you m be an expert on that issue. >> well, i don't know about informed legal opinion, but in justice scalia's opinion in heller, he acknowledges that part of the purpose of the second amendment is to enable the citizenry to resist or more importantly deter attempts at tierney. and i think he's right about that. and in fact, the -- it's important to distinguish between this caricature of the kind of argument that he was alluding to, namely that we have a second amendment right of insurrection, or something like that, which is not true, but there's a long tradition, articulated by james madison, for example, according to whichyranny is less likely
to be imposed on an armed citizenry. why is that? because it's more costly to do it. and the fact that through technological and social changes, there's certainly no doubt that the 101st airborne could defeat any group of american citizens with their hunting rifles. that's certainly true. that doesn't change the fact that in less extreme situations, governnt oppression, government violence can be deterred by the fact thathere are armed citizens. because they raise the prospective cost, or raise the risk of engaging in tyranny. and there are examples of that. for example, durng the '60s in the civil rights movement, where the government and quasi government organizations like the ku klux klan were deterred by visibly and organized groups
of blacks and civil rights workers arming themselves to make it more costly to oppress them. although this kind of operates at the margin nowadays, not in the kind of ultimate extreme sense that people like to think of it, it does not mean that an armed citizenry is no deterrent at all against illegal government oppression. >> can i comment on that? >> the gentleman right behind the gentleman who spoke? >> right. i'm brian bishop from the ocean state policy research institute in rhode island. although anything i have to say certainly isn't considered a policy that our think tank has established. but i'm struck by the contrast that is attempted to be drawn between the first amendnt and the second amendment, only because certainly the rhetorical
resort in recent -- in the recent contemporary news cycle has been to suggest that indeed the first amendment was what was at fault the shooting in tucson. and so i think it's somewhat of a kinard to suggest there's a seemingly broader difference that the first amendment can hurt you and the second does. at least when not acknowledging that one's own camp, or many in it, are suggesting differently. i'm wondering if you've considered that conundrum. >> anybody wish to comment on that? >> yes. i mean, you know, it may very well be useful toave a public discussion at this juncture about the civility of our discourse, et cetera. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008
>> to the extent that speech creates a clear and present danger of violence, it is considered not protected at all. there is the fighting words doctrine that goes back a long way back. my argument is that from the point of view of constitutional jurisprudence there is no reason to lead to the analogy of the first amendment and basically derive all second amendment law from the first amendment. asked if you look at the state courts, of which have been interpreting right to bear arms provisions for many years because there were many that clearly guaranteed an individual right, the state courts have universally developed a test of
reasonable, which i think is more deferential then intermediate scrutiny. the state courts have recognized that this is a very different matter, having instrumentality of a lethal violence is a different kettle of fish than talking about instrumentality of violence. >> unfortunately, we cannot handle all of the questions. we will take two more. we will have two quick questions, and two quick answers. >> i am with the brady center. i will be very quick to alan gura and nelson lund. do you think a ban on magazines that would limit that the three magazines to 10 rounds is constitutional? >> i hate to give quick questions -- quick answers to those questions because i think
in need to do a careful legal analysis before you decide these kind of questions that the margin. i think it is very dubious in part because such bans on high- capacity magazines are so sick leave in terms of any type of reasonable prospect -- are so silly in terms of any type of reasonable prospect. >> the legal analysis would go something like this, after heller, if you are looking at a lot better dresses magazine capacity, the question then becomes whether or not a gun with this type of magazine is an arm that people would expect to find in common use for traditional lawful purposes. that is the common test. the question is not to whether the bad guy can use it. the per furred what come -- the preferred weapon of criminals as
a handgun. the question is not whether the thing could be misused, the question is the -- whether people can expect to find in common use for traditional lawful purposes. if you are talking about any 11-round magazine, the fact of the matter is that millions upon millions of normal handguns ship with 15 or 17-round handguns. what people do not often think about when they think about these kinds of laws is that there is always a cost when you get something and take away access to civilians. in a real-world situation where people are firing guns in self- defense, they are likely to mess, which is why police carry guns that normally contain a frame of 15 or 17 rounds if you
want to take one for self defense, you would take the of 11-round as opposed to the 10- round pick it could be the difference of life or death. to send an arbitrary limit of 10, would probably not survive. >> the problem with people like john mofford is he had even one shot. if he only killed three people, it would have still been a disaster. we need to make sure that people like him do not get an access to any type of firearm and not go after arbitrary bands on things. >> the question was whether i thought it was constitutional, you have to make a distinction, and i think alan correctly try
to construe howler in a certain way. heller is not a constitution. i think it is useful, at least in your own mind to distinguish between what you think the constitution means and what you think heller opinion means, because they're not identical, although they are treated as identical. i want to apologize for the noise. the workers are under construction to hold off jackhammers and what have you and so 1:30 p.m., which is presumably a signal to me. in any of them, we will have one last question from this very patient young woman right here. >> this question is for mr. and again. i am from arizona, and i feel much safer and there because of the guns that i do did washington d.c., of which washington, d.c., because of
the gun laws. considering driving a car on a daily basis is much more dangerous and statistically speaking your chances of dying are much higher, how do you justify the fact that the nanny state of the government can take control of people's decisions and decide when they should or should not bear arms inside of their home? where does the nanny state and, and how will you protect people from themselves, essentially? >> the analogy is one that teaches some lessons, and in other ways it breaks down at first of all, if we used guns the way we used cars, if the average gun owner basically handled his gun as often as he drives his car, i fear what the death rate from guns would be.
you have to control for the use of the product before you can actually make those analogies. however, bringing up cars does teach us something. even though cars are not weapons, and they are not designed to kill, they are designed to get us from place to place, we do have sensible regulation of cars that we do not have with guns. we have licensing, registration, safety standards. we do not have any of those things of the federal level with guns. i think we could learn from the regulation. lunch upstairs. first, let's have a round of applause for our guest. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> we are alive now, in cambridge, maryland, the site of a weekend policy and strategy retreat for house democrats to. house republicans have their retreat last weekend in baltimore. we will hear shortly from democratic leadership, minority leader nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, and others. if they will have a news conference to take reporters' questions. we will also hear later today from vice-president joe biden. he is speaking to the group, as is the president. again, this news conference, we now understand will get underway in about 10 or 50 minutes.
we mentioned president obama speaking to this group. the associated press say we might get the taste of what is expected in the state of the union speech. the president is making his way now to schenectady, new york, where he will be speaking at the general electric plant. that state's "albany times union" reports that the president is expected to announce that jeff immelt will replace paul volcker on a new council on jobs and competitiveness -- a panel created to look a job creation. when obama addresses the economy and in g e's plans for green energy projects, mr. jeff immelt will be at his side. we will cover that appearance on c-span2. look for that shortly after 1:00 this afternoon.
hear, on c-span, we are waiting to hear from democrats in a moment or two. at 12:15, where we will take you live to the u.s. neighbors. they are wrapping up their annual winter meeting in washington. they will be talking about the economy. if they will have business leaders and the housing secretary there. one more note on congress, of course the state of the union is tuesday night. we will have that for you here, on c-span, beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. it has been reported that paul ryan will be the republican who will give the republican response. all of that tuesday night, with coverage here on c-span and c- span2. while we wait for democrats to come out, we will bring you some items in the news from this morning's "washington journal." over the next 10 years. "washington journal."
those are some of the recommendations that the republican study committee is making. our numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between your calls. you can also send us a tweet. or an e-mail. you can see the e-mail address there on the screen. the chairman of the study committee, jim jordan, spoke at the heritage yesterday. here is a little bit of what he had to say. >> we have got to get this
headed in the right direction, get the ship turned around on the right path so we can begin to pay down this $14 trillion in debt. our bill takes the first step. goes back to 2008 levels and to truly do that, rescind some of the stimulus dollars to get $100 billion in savings. and then this next year forward, go back to 2006 spending levels. what we did is we went to members of the rnc and said, bring us your ideas, things that you think are redundant, ridiculous and they brought us their ideas and we put them in the bill. there may be some that some may not like, but for the most part, we are in agreement on a lot of items. for the first time in 10 years it will save us about $2.5 trillion. host: we will start in
massachusetts, jim, what do you think of these proposed cuts? caller: as to the weaseling that brian is trying to accomplish by saying the they cannot do the holding this year, when they were elected, they were elected in large measure because of the repeal of obama care, etc. they knew they were going to have this fiscal year. to go back on that now is indicative of the way that washington tend to warp -- tends to board, even the most conservative republicans. i cannot believe my tax dollars are spent on anything like this in pr a, or any of this liberal stripe -- such as npr, or any of tripe.iberal trie
host: next call, good morning. caller: basically, this is about corporations, oil companies, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies controlling all the money. secondly, if they wanted to cut, cut their role in pay. and as far as the health care bill and all of this stuff, that it is raising the debt, no, they want to go back to the insurance companies getting a a x amount of dollars that they are not getting any more. all of these different reforms and all of this stuff, the reason that these reforms have to take place is because these particular businesses are the ones that are draining the life blood of the united states america. host: sorry, i thought you were finished. ken is an independent from mount
clemens, michigan. what do you think about some of these proposed cutbacks caller: good morning, and thank you for of taking my call. excuse me if i do not start crying here. by live on less than $15,000 per year -- i live on less than $15,000 per year and i'm doing fine. i am healthy. i served in the military and i get a lot of flak because i ask for very, very little, just enough to get by. i have people telling me to go home and suffer when i go to the v.a. hospital. i'm wondering what else you want to cut. when you make these cuts, you get what you paid for. you get a lot of these entitlement programs and you are going to have a lot of people knocking on doors. good luck. host: here are some more
gary is a republican in sterling, va., in the suburbs. host: i am a hawk -- an eisenhower republican. can i do a little housecleaning because there is some chat but i keep hearing coming over c-span, and that is about these references to acorn. i have had three encounters over the last 15 years with acorn, you know, being a handyman downtown. each time it has been the same. i have been approached by gun black men, you know, clean, well spoken and they would inquire as to whether i would be interested to sign the register to vote. each time i would say no and
they would say, i will give you $5. that is what they always started with. and finally, i would say, no, i do not have time. and then they would say, surely $6 or $7 would be worth your while and i would say no. finally, i would tell them, look, i am a felon. i have a record. and each time i got the same reply from them. host: gary, do you want to talk about budget cuts? i'm not sure what that story had to do with anything we are talking about. caller: that is just some chat i heard come over. we could save a lot of money on the irresponsible and unmanageable parenting. host: san bernardino, calif., tonya is a democrat.
caller: i find it redundant that if it was all about balancing the deficit, then the republicans would not have pushed so hard for tax cuts. you would have to do both. i find it disingenuous because they passed a $4 trillion tax cuts or budget or stimulus or whatever you call it and now they want to put taxes on the backs of the poor people. i find it disingenuous that they want to balance the budget. i do not think they care about that at all. i think they are shifting the money again to the rich. and i think they're cutting the programs of the port. and in regard to the last caller, and acorn, everyone knows that acorn is supposed to
help low-income and minority people and programs. i believe in his comment was baseless. thank you, c-span. host: and we are talking about the republican study committees proposed $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years this morning. this week from john -- we have never taken the dollar and will never take a dollar of federal monies. clinton on the independent line. caller: hi, how are you doing? my question is about the cuts on the environment. i mean, if we do not begin looking at where we are doing to the plan there right now, cuts will not even matter -- to the plan that right now, cuts will not even matter. 200 species per day are dying.
we are killing them. they're going extinct. and we are cutting back on any program that would do anything at all to try to save the planet. these people are not even paying attention to what is going on. host: would be opposed to cutting funds for species to survive all? caller: exactly. host: what would you cut? would you cut anything? caller: the other guy talked about being in eisenhower died and i remember watching and eisenhower -- being and eisenhower guy and i remember watching and eyes and hardy of the of the day on the military- industrial complex. the right now, we spend more money on at that than any other country. and yet, we are willing to continue to give billionaire's tax breaks, which does not make a lot of sense. host: thanks for calling in this
morning. patricia in danbury, conn. caller: good morning, c-span. it's one of the things veteran not because any money to amtrak. some of the cuts i have thought should be about abortion, anything to do with head start should be cut. if you should not even exist. -- it should not even exist. and on a lot of the money that is spent on feeding kids when they are in school. all the money spent on the obama family vacations. and every federal employee that has been hired since this presidency began should be let go. host: patricia, why you want to preserve money for amtrak? caller: because it is important for transportation.
host: karl, a democrat, chicago. caller: good morning. we went through something like this in 1860 where we had a political party that was willing to divide the country by starting the war. what the republicans are doing from what i see, anything that is democrat, we are going to get rid of it. what should our government be? how much should our government spend? that is the first thing that you have to do. instead, they are going to make sure that they cut everything that this administration has done. and basically, they have taken the attitude of someone who is anorexic. they look in the mirror and say, well, it is too big and i've got
number one, we should end the war on drugs. we are failing miserably and if we end the war on drugs and legalize them, we do not have to spend all of this money housing prisoners that are just off drug users and doing drug crimes. >> "washington journal" online any time. we're heading over to the eastern shore of maryland, where democrats are meeting. a news conference is about to get under way with democratic leaders. live coverage on c-span. >> what an enthusiastic and inspiration all start to our annual issues conference. to be there yesterday in the rotunda and to see two of our leaders who were actually at the inauguration of john fitzgerald
kennedy -- >> wait a minute, i was the only one at that. [laughter] >> yeah. and to listen to the inspirational words and to know that the torch has been passed to another generation, carried ably by our president barack obama. we are delighted that we are having the vice-president addressing as on foreign policy this afternoon and the president, who will talk to our members later this evening. we have gotten off to a great start, because our theme is about the economy and jobs. and that theme is make it in america. we know that when you make it in america, every american can make it. and our troops, our members
have been enthusiastic. they have come here with ideas. this is been a great opportunity to us, especially after the events that have transpired. not only are we inspired by the words of president kennedy but also by the progress of gabrielle. and get real, as you all know from news, is being transported to houston -- the gabrielle is being transported to houston. all of our members are getting together and doing photographs and opportunities, and we will be sending her a message from everyone in our caucus. we think this is a great way to start our caucus, inspired by president kennedy and that 50th anniversary. to have the president and vice president to emphasize the need to put america back to work, to focus on jobs and the economy, and to make it in america. i am going back to our caucus. i will gladly turn this over to our vice chair. >> thank you very much.
we're looking forward to the lunch that has been a arranged for us. members -- i have got to tell you, members came to work. 7:30 a.m. this morning, members were at it already. that was after pretty sociable night yesterday evening. it is great to see that members are fired up and ready to go. members are prepared to get to work. because at the end of the day, we know what our job is. job one is jobs in america. we just finished a fabulous session, headed by our whip steny horror -- steny hoyer, where we heard from representatives from ford. were it not for the efforts of president barack obama and the democratic congress of last year, we might not have had a ford to talk about. when they say they're going to hire 7000 american workers, we
know we're grantmaking in america. this conference is very focused, unlike others -- we are very prepared to tell america what our plan is, what our agenda is to move this country forward and make it in america. with that, i would like to turn out to our leader, nancy pelosi. >> thank you very much. thank you for your leadership in bringing the members together. not only for these couple of days but over time, so they could help shape the agenda for the meeting on how we solve problems for the american people, how we create jobs, how we reduce the deficit, and how we strength in the middle class. we just left a very lively session that steny had it up. make it in america. it is a very, very encouraging, a path to how we can it not only be economically viable, have
energy independence and environmental strength, but how we do it in a way that creates jobs here in our country. so as the double meaning says, people can make it in america. it is very exciting. 2 hearken back to john larsen from yesterday as we gathered in the rotunda, part of the remarks talked about president kennedy talking about getting america moving again, coming out of the decade with three recessions in it at that time. well, we have come out of the decade with a deep, deep, deep recession in its it. it would have been a depression with of the actions taken by president obama and the democratic congress. and to hear the representative of ford here, there would be no industry with out that our actions. this is about economic strength for our country. it is also about our national
security. oure're not strengthening industrial manufacturing and technological base, where weakening our national security. it is very exciting on how we create jobs to reduce the deficit, strength in the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy. we also had a lively discussion that you will hear about about our prospects for success. to the extent that we can convince the american people that we're here to solve their problems by creating jobs, we will be back. thank you all very much. now the distinguished democratic whip, fresh from a very lively session with our members, steny hoyer of maryland. >> well, i want to thank the speaker. i know she's temporarily the leader. but i want to thank her for her leadership on our agenda. i want to tell you something, you have brought together a
group of members here in cambridge, maryland, and we welcome you to our state into this beautiful area of our state. you have brought a group of members to gather that do not have a minority psychology. their psychology is to act, to promote, to offer solutions to the challenges that confront our country, as we have been doing, and they are working. not fast enough. make it in america was the subject matter of the panel we just concluded. participating in that panel included mark bellman, one of the most distinguished consultants and pollsters in america, he tells us that the american public, nine out of 10 believe that if we're not making it, making things, manufacturing, and growing
things in america and selling them here and across the globe, that we will not be the country we want to be. and then we have the representatives of a major american manufacturer, ford motor company. and what was meant by ford motor, might not be here is that at suppliers at gm and chrysler gone out of business, the suppliers would have gone out of business. if you talk to alan molly, although he got no direct federal money, he will tell you that was critical for the survival of ford motor company, as well as gm and chrysler. we now have a growing base in our automobile manufacturers. 7000 new jobs will be created over the next few years here in america by ford motor company. they have brought manufacturi bg that abilities back from india, from mexico the from china. this is an agenda that our members are excited about. make it in america.
we think people are not sure that they're going to make it in america. we believe that not only are they going to make it, but america is going to make it in this global marketplace. we have the representative from ford motor, but the president of uaw, an extraordinary leader of working americans in this country. he said he was enthusiastic about the make it in america agenda. tony brown from ford motor company said he was enthusiastic. we think we can bring business and labor together. we can bring conservatives and liberals together. we can bring all of our country together on the agenda of making sure that we may get in america in both meetingmeanings of that. i am enthused about your participation. we're ready to go. we're ready to work with our republican colleagues on an agenda that will ensure that --
that every american makes it in our country. thank you very much. to my friend jim cliburn. >> thank you very much. madam leader, vice chair. i am very, very enthusiastic about where we are as a caucus. i got here yesterday afternoon. i was not in attendance back in 1960 at the inauguration. i was old enough to attend. [laughter] but i was not old enough to vote in that election in 1960. the interesting thing about the life and legacy of john f. kennedy, and as a life and legacy because, as you know, it's the new spirit that john kennedy brought to the presidency, which was too short
of a presidency, was of such. that when his funeral was held, a little-known piece of history here, because of the families philosophy, you'll see that among the honor guard was an african-american representing the army. he was a classmate of mine from the first grade. and i remember how proud we were being from south carolina and seeing one of our own carrying the casket of john f. kennedy. i cannot tell you what that did to those of us who were coming along. that stays with me even until this day. i want to say one other thing.
i think that what you saw two days ago by president obama is indicative of where we are as a caucus and a party. while the other side is talking about going back to bush, be it 2008 or 2006, president obama immelt, the ceof of ge, to move forward with a job creation agenda. i think that signals a tremendous new direction for the economy of this country. this president and the members of this caucus worked together
to save our economy and bring it back to where we now see job growth taking place. now what we are going to see, i think, with this new direction, we're going to see a surge in the dog creation in this country, and i think the appointment of jeff immelt signals that. and since he will not have to worry about nbc, he will have much more time to get to this job. i will go to mr. israel, who ipad did -- who i might add, did a tremendous presentation this morning that already has members talking. so congratulations. >> thank you very much let me thank the leader for asking me to chair the ccc.
i am very excited. i have two points. first, this morning, our carpus kicked off the 25 seats -- our caucus kicked off an hour drive for 25, 25 seats to take back the majority. my job is to help us make it back to the majority. when we get back to the majority, we can help the middle class may get here. we can protect small businesses. we can help small businesses grow djobs. this is driver 25 is going to based on two essential ingredients. one, we're going to offer constructive proposals. republicans spent four years saying no and lifting a finger to help. we're going to offer constructive, thoughtful, economic proposals to grow jobs like make it in america. two, we're going to will the republicans accountable when they do not support the interests of middle-class and working families in this country. we are going to hold them
accountable when they demonstrate levels of hypocrisy. we will work with them. but when they do not uphold the values that are important to middle-class and working families, we're going to let the american people know about that. that brings me to my second point. the republicans promised three things and taken to washington, the majority. the promised that that would create jobs. the promise that that would reduce debt. and a promise that it would change the way washington works. in the first three weeks, they are 0-3. they promise to create jobs and instead they want to repeal health care. the only jobs they create it was up for press secretaries to draft press releases on the repeal of health care, which is not going to happen. they said they would reduce debt, but instead the increased debt two hundred $30 million. they said they would change the way washington works, and what they have shown is a stunning level of support received by voting to protect their health care benefits while repealing it
for the americans that they represent. so we are going to hold them accountable. they have had a rough three weeks. for the next 655 days between now and the next election, we will offer constructive economic jobs-creating alternatives and try and work with them. and we will hold them accountable when they do not uphold the interests of middle- class working families and small businesses. thank you very much. many turn it over to an individual who i have a new appreciation for -- [laughter] in the past three weeks, i have a full understanding of what the past four years were like for christmas and holland -- for chris van hollan. >> thank you. it is all yours now. i want to welcome the caucus to maryland and i think the caucus leadership for choosing maryland to host the conference. i join my colleagues in saying that we look forward to working with our republican colleagues,
the majority in the house. in moving the country forward, if that is their agenda in terms of getting people back to work and accelerating economic growth, if they truly want to put this country out of a sustainable, -- on a piece sustainable fiscal path, and we want to assure we support the middle class. as stephen others have said, unfortunately, the first few weeks did not present a very good sign on any of those friends. number one, we have spent the first couple weeks in their effort to try and repeal the health care bill, and we all know that millions of americans are learning the great benefits of that bill in terms of consumer and patient protections. in the process, they have, in a short time span, blown a big additional hole in the deficit. the nonpartisan, independent budget office says that over the
next 10 years, they just in very short order added $230 billion to the deficit. and over 20 years, it is a total of $1.40 trillion added to the deficit. that is not fiscal responsibility. those are not our numbers. those are the numbers of the independent congressional budget office. i know our republican colleagues do not like to hear that, but it is a recipe for budget anarchy and fiscal chaos and a lot of red teamed in the future if we're going to totally ignore the numbers of the professionals in the congressional budget office. so we look forward to working with them. this week they are going to bring a budget resolution to the floor that is unlike any previous budget resolution. it has no number in it. it is a budget resolution without a number. you can only conclude that this is an effort to create the illusion that they are addressing some of these
problems, when in fact, there is nothing to be seen. as somebody said, where's the beef here? and at the same time, we know that members of the republican study group just put out a proposal that is reckless in terms of the impact on the economy and jobs. you know, the nonpartisan and a bipartisan, i should say, a commission that was put together by the president to reduce the deficit and the debt send two messages. we agree with them that we need to act now to but this country on a sustainable fiscal path. they also indicated that when the economy is as fragile as it is and we're trying to put people back to work, you do not cut in a blind way, in a way that the republican study group has proposed. that is a recipe for slowing down our fragile economic recovery and putting people out of work. as my colleagues have said, we
look forward to working with our republican colleagues if they really want to work to get the economy going and get the people back to work and reduce the deficit and help the middle class. unfortunately, the first two weeks have not, you know, showed many good size of that, but we still stand ready to work with them. thank you. >> so as you can see, we're ready to pick up where we left off from before. that is creating more jobs for americans. last year, we created more jobs in america in that one year than it george bush had created in over eight years for the private sector. so we are ready, and we're hoping our republican colleagues will join us in this effort to help americans get back to work. with that, we will take any questions. >> i wonder, actually, madam leader, i wonder, the republican strategy that you will -- it
worked very well. i wonder how you will balance working with them, from the political culture does consulting them on every measure? and where are you all sitting during the state of union? >> first of all, it did not work. the republican just say no policy did not work for the american people because what they said no to his every job- creation initiative that we tried to put forth. from day one, president obama and democrats in thunderous -- in congress were for creating jobs with the recovery package. 3.6 million jobs were saved or creative. what initiatives in there and other initiatives taken to more jobs were saved. so that was the first act of congress for job creation, and it has worked. every other initiative -- they have seen it in their political interests to just say no, and
the american people pay the price. what we have done, and employment, which is at 9.5%, but without what we have done, it would be at 14.5%. the fact is, it may have worked for them to have high unemployment, which is very hard to overcome -- for incumbents to overcome by an election, but it did not work for america's working families who want jobs, who want to work. and no, i do not the word for them. people can sit wherever they want in the house of representatives. we have open seating. the senate has assigned seats. we have open seating. sometimes it comes down to region. the pennsylvania corner, the massachusetts folks. sometimes it is the hispanic caucus and the black caucus. it just depends on what the conversation is at the moment again, people want -- at the moment. again, people will sit wherever they want. >> will people mix together? >> i think so.
there is more than you think. >> i have talked to a lot of members who are going to be sitting with republicans, whether they're in their state, whether they have joint responsibilities on committees or something of that nature. i expect you to see a visual symbolism of the willingness to reach across and work with one another. hopefully that will manifest itself in a real commitment to building jobs and growing america so that every american can make it. >> and by the way, i have been sitting next to vice-president dick cheney for a long time. [laughter] i just want the record to show. >> if i can break for a moment, i told you we were joined by a representative from ford motor and also by bob keene, one of the extraordinary leaders of working people in this country. i would like to say a couple remarks. bob king, the president of the united autoworkers. >> i want to give him a round of
applause. [applause] >> i am very, very appreciative of the leadership of the democratic caucus for doing that. we are making america -- a government, business, labor, working together, we're making the best vehicles in the world, the highest quality. our facilities are the highest productivity facilities. the american public does not realize it yet, but we're making america better than anybody else. so i am very excited about this initiative and excited about looking a working-class people and figuring out how to help them make it in america. so that double meaning is very important, and i am excited to be a part of it. >> on health care, can you explain why you voted against the democratic motion to recommit last week? scenes like a significant break away from leadership. >> well, i think the vote was overwhelming. my only view is that i was
>> the democrat news conference in cambridge, maryland. they will hear from president obama later this evening. a lot of talk about jobs, and that will be the focus of the president's comments as well. he is in new york and will speak at the general electric plant just after 1:00 eastern. he is expected to announce that the ge ceo jeffrey immelt will head up his new jobs board. you can see that on c-span2.
we're going to take you to the u.s. conference of mayors. they're wrapping up their winter meeting in washington. you're going to hear later from a number of businesses, representatives from sprint and starbucks. also, shaun donovan, the housing secretary. they have just started here in washington, and it is live here on c-span. >> i want to thank our platinum partners, american management services, are great relationship with dupont, nationwide at retirement solutions, walmart stores, and waste management. great partners to the conference of mayors. thank you. [applause] today, the business council has 112 members. we have come a long way. a few years ago i went to the governors' meeting, and they had sending called corporate fellows. it was all the business people. , what is going on? and they said, we pay $12,000 to
come here. as i said to myself, self, hey, they're coming. when you get, you're part of it. i want to think jerry powell over here. [applause] judy reid. we have a two-person staff on the business council. thank you so much. let's continue to go forward, and we're going to need you more than ever because we have a new congress. they will come at you about programs. when they tried to abolish the cdbg program underbrush two, you were with us. we're going to need you more than ever. we need to continue to convince the congress and the people here in washington that these funds do not stay in city hall. they go out. they go out and multiplied to make our cities stronger, more jobs. i want to thank the steering
committee, a group of people that have dedicated a lot of time and service. i would like for them to stand and be recognized. deon, david, john, dan, rick, donovan, tom, preston, mike, walter, eric, ken, ann, and lucinda. [applause] thank you so much. and continue. >> thank you, tom. now let me call on our steering committee co-chair, who will also introduce a sponsor's representative for their companies. our first co-chair is the national director at sprint. dan -- [applause] >> thank you. good afternoon. i know it has been a very full week for everyone.
as i go to introduce my executive, i would like to start up by thanking all of you will, the u.s. conference of mayors, president kautz, and the entire staff for waterfall conference. as we look at what we do in the public-private partnership, where more similar than we are dissimilar in terms of the corporate environment and private sector. we have a board of directors. as of mares, you have a city council. you have to balance the budget and work with your constituents. we have to do is something similar, and that is grow market share and work with our customers. with that said, we understand that it is all about partnership, and we look forward to working with you. we enjoyed oklahoma. we have enjoyed the winter meeting. and we look for to baltimore. and now to the introduction of my executive, ken green curve. she is the regional executive for sprint midwest. -- kim green-kerr.
she has years of leadership. and it is all about leadership. it is about what the mayor daley said as he received his award, that you have to look forward with a vision and think forward could you also have to have the imagination. this is an executive that thinks forward, is a visionary, and things that quite a bit. she runs an organization that is responsible for about $1.4 billion worth of business and does an outstanding job for us. she is a graduate of the university of southern mississippi, and she is also a graduate of the school of business at georgetown university sales and management program. i would like to introduce to you now kim green-kerr. [applause] >> get afternoon, and thank you
for that great opening there. i am dealing with a little bit of a sore throat, so bear with me, but i will get through this. we're thrilled to be a sponsor of the mares and business leaders lunch. the private-public partnership, we consider that very important. i know it has been a very busy week here in washington. the chinese president came to town. then you started your winter meeting. i heard you had a great breakfast this morning at the white house. one of the things that was prominent on the news this week was the ability that fell into the fountain while she was text messaging at the mall. did any of you see that? my first thought was that had to be a teenager, but it turned out to be a 49-year-old woman. it very well could have been me. thank god it was not. thankfully, she was not hurt. a very embarrassed. but it reminded me that we are working around the text messaging and drug initiative.
granted, we do not have a text message and what initiative, but maybe we need one now. last year, we sponsored oprah's no phone zone day. we have partnered on safe driving campaigns. it is on the top of our mind. i say this because you think of us is a telecommunications company. yes, we have a wireless, a voice, and data, and a myriad of iconic products other, but we're so much more. that will be evidenced by the award we will receive later on. but we're very dedicated to corporate social responsibility and sustainability. these are not buzz words and our companies. we live and practices every day. i know many of you are concerned with making our communities in greener as an example. did you know that spread was rated number 6 on a newsweek magazine's second annual green rating, which honors the country's greatest companies? it was the highest ranking telecom provider. i know many of you have had
meetings discussing jobs and unemployment in the budget deficit this week. many of the residence in your communities are hurting. even though the majority of americans, probably 90%, have cell phones, there's still that 9% or 10% who do not. why did you do about them? what do you do when employers are trying to reach them? we have a service for low-income americans in 19 states and the district of columbia, and we're going to expand that program to 50 states. there are countless examples i could side of our involvement of private and public partnership, even when it comes to recycling phones. but i will stick with those two for now. but we have had a long history, 15 years, of this private-public partnership. we're dedicated to ongoing partnerships. so enjoy your lunch today, and we're glad to be a co-sponsor. thank you for your time. [applause] >> thank you very much.
we really appreciate all that you have done. thank you. let me now introduce codeshare kim winston, senior manager of government in civic affairs at starbucks. kim -- [applause] >> mary, you said kimberly, and i looked over at her. they're two of us today. i am kim winston, co-chair of the business council steering committee and senior management of governor affairs for starbucks. i want to first thank mayor kautz for her leadership in your strong support of the council. you have demonstrated on countless occasions that you are truly committed to business, and we thank you. i also want to -- [applause] absolutely. i want to thank my co-chair, danny gillison. i want to thank him for his
support, guidance, leadership, and friendship. as a new steering committee co- chair, you took me under your wings. you have taught me the ropes, along with many others in the audience, and i want to thank you for being a friend as well as a partner but also, i want to say that we appreciate all of the u.s. conference of mayors and members, and we especially thank mayor daley for his vision and leadership and bringing the business council to fruition. as a person affiliated with his counsel for the past three years -- excuse me, under three employers, i have personally witnessed the evolution and growth of this section, and we're pleased to be a partner. i want to acknowledge the entire uscm staff the worked tirelessly. we really thank you. and i want to thank the member companies and associations to make of this council. thank you for your strong support. you stood firm with us in very
challenging economic times, and we appreciate that. yay. [applause] setti i am double--- so i am double-hatted today because we're also co-sponsors of this particular lunch, and proud to be so. i wanted to share that starbucks is turning 40 this year. y we. oung, right? -- we look young, right? [laughter] we have grown to nearly 17,000 stores in 55 countries and employ close to wonder 20,000 partners or employees worldwide. only in america could such a story be told, and we're so grateful to serve your community is 1 cup, one customer at a time. so thank you for inviting us every day into your communities. i would like to bring forward my partner at this time.
i have to qualify that. when starbucks, everybody is a partner. i am proud to bring forward my colleague and vice president of global responsibility, ben packard. i want to tell you about the great things we're doing in your communities. he is a tenured partner with starbucks. he oversees our environmental stewardship, ethical sourcing, and other social responsibility functions. prior to assuming the vice president's role, he led our environmental affairs team, and he was one of the key architects in developing the first fda- approved post consumer fiber cut. with that, ben -- [applause] >> thank you. a great business partner there. i also want to thank the conference of mayors for having starbucks at this very important junction in our history of the country. i know you had a very important day at the white house this morning, and i am honored to be
about follow that with conversation today about sending very important to starbucks. as she mentioned, we are about to celebrate our 40th anniversary. in celebration, one of the things that we're going to commit to, and you'll see as more active in your community, which plays on the theme: the jefferson awards, is our investment in use. investments we're looking through service and local grand dollars to you. but today, i wanted to actually talk about our environmental stewardship platform. it is a conversation we started last year at this conference. you may recall my colleague introduced this conversation about a very simple question that your constituents, our customers, are asking about. it seems like a very simple question. p when ipens to this cu am done with it? now, this is an issue we're hearing about increasingly through traditional media, social networking, enter online tools we have developed to
increase the connection with our customers. many people assume it is a very simple, quick fix. about either changing the materials aren't putting a container in your store. that simple. well, we actually doubled down in our environmental commitments about two years ago. we put ourselves forward with a goal that we would have 100% of our cups recyclable by the year 2015. when we began on this bill, we, too, assumed that it was about a material change, about making this cup it is something different that we can put into existing recycling its streams. well, through this goal, we learned a couple things. we actually stepped back to step forward. engaged one of the leading systems thinkers of our time, a gentleman from mit. he has written the books on how to apply systems thinking too typical industrial ecology situations. what peter and the process that
we engaged by engaging players in the supply chain, from cup manufacturers to paper manufacturers, to the suppliers that make the codings on the paper, we met with city managers, recycling managers, paper mills. what we learned is that the most meaningful long-term impact, we actually need to focus on the local recycling infrastructure. this is where you come in. this is where our partnership and our collaboration is absolutely essential. we have seen their examples in san francisco -- through examples in san francisco, seattle, and in other places that the development of the local recycling infrastructure, together with the policy people we need to put into place, we can be successful in truly making this cup recyclable. there are inconsistencies that we're seeing from one location to the other on whether or not the policy piece or the
resecting peace and our containers can work well together. but what i am here to tell you is that we're making success, thanks to some pilot that we have worked with with our major cup supply air, international paper. we have taken this cup and for a pilot program, recycled back into another cup. [applause] thank you. i want to cause some other really important partners in this. international paper, mississippi river pulp company, a critical players in helping us push the envelope on this journey. we have very exciting pilots coming up or we're not only going to recycle the cups back into cups. in chicago, we will take the cp in recycled back into the napkins' we use in our stores. in other is -- in other locations, we will recycle them into the holders. we're making progress. there an additional pilots and we're very excited.
but departed -- the critical part of all this is the partnership we need to have with you. we're very excited to not only be able to drive this through starbucks stores, but the partnership on the local policies that is absolutely critical to us. we urge you to take a hard look at your local recycling program. together, we think we can have a significant impact. we encourage you to engage with your colleagues here today who have done so. thank you for your partnership in a seattle, where we have rolled out a citywide recycling program of our cups. antiwhite to the mayor of san francisco, where we have been recycling for the last 18 months as a result of an of it of local policy and collaboration between us and the recycling industry. mayor daley, mayor reid, mayor villaraigosa in los angeles, and our home town mayor have demonstrated that we can do this to our partnership. we are eager to work with you and your staff members.
please connect with me or any of my teammates are here today to work on this. thank you to the u.s. conference of mayors for your engagement on this issue. we look forward to working with you in the future. thank you. [applause] >> thank youben and kimberly, for your support of the u.s. conference of mayors and the business council. i look forward to working with you, along with other steering committee members in the future. today's awards recognize four successful and outstanding relationships between cities and businesses. now let's begin with the outstanding achievement awards. our first award goes to linebarger company out of port arthur, texas.
in 2008, port arthur was in the midst of an economic downturn. then hurricane ike strike, turning many homes and commercial buildings and vacant lots and abandoned structures. mayor delores bobby prince, using an idea from the company, to use the property tax code to acquire abandoned and dilapidated properties, and that division to revitalize port arthur. the mayor and mr. mayfield created an incubator area for redevelopment by a dignifying properties to purchase subject to tax sales. today, using a neighborhood stabilization plan grant 2grant54 properties that -- 254 properties have been purchased. eight homes are now under construction, and other lots are being marketed for residential
and commercial development. port arthur is poised for a much brighter future with a sense of hope and opportunity for the first time in several years. accepting the award is mayor dolores bobby prince and clayton mayfield, a managing director at linebarger, gogan, and blair. [applause] >> our next when there's are nehimiah corporation of america and the city of sacramento for the township nine project.
t9 is a 65-acre site, urban scale, mixed views, a transit- oriented master plan neighborhood. it was developed by capital station at 65 llc and its managing member ncrf. the city secured $30 million for the california department of housing and community development and worked with t9 staff to establish a new urban design guidelines and ordinance involving the american river parkway. this collaboration ever established a model for urban project development that will be utilized throughout the sacramento region and can be replicated nationwide. t9 won top honors from the state of california and is regarded as a catalyst project. mayor kevin johnson of
sacramento could not be with us today. and accepting his award, we will make sure that he will receive it. accepting the award for nehimiah corporation is the president and ceo. scott -- [applause] is from thewintener city of schenectady for the schenectady new york project. in 1991, the city of schenectady formed a public- private partnership with the violia water for the operation, maintenance of the waste water plan in composting program.
identifying and prioritizing the effects before they become dilemmas through its underground asset management program. has limited the city's expected to costly fines, improved efficiencies, and saved the city $600,000 on a sewer cleaning project. violia water is also working on a cogeneration program and drying system to reduce the plant's electrical consumption and carbon footprint. both partners view their relationship as extremely resilient and beneficial, even as tough times have gotten worse. mayor stratton asked sandra sullivan, vice president of government and industrial relations of violia water north america, to accept the public- private partnership award for him. you know may restrain is on his
way with the president up to his hometown of schenectady. we all saw him take off with the on the presidential helicopter and on their way to schenectady. so congratulations to our award winners. thank you so much to violia. [applause] >> congratulations to our outstanding achievement winners. now for our award of excellence. the award of excellence this year goes to sprint nextel and the city of chicago for their
project entitled smart communications broadband adoption program. chicago mayor richard daley, smart communities program has created a unique partnership that drives broadband adoption by building on the strength of government, community organizations, and the private sector. the city of chicago, with support from the federal broadband technology opportunities program, provides funding for computers and other hardware and software tools, eliminate the -- eliminating some of the costly barriers to home internet use. additionally, the community development organization lisk chicago and its partner gave opprobrious skills training programs, grass-roots outrage, and hyper local content. in further support of the initiative, sprint nextel will offer free or low-cost wireless broadband service through
virgin mobile usa's broadband togo to avoid financial barriers faced by vulnerable families. the pilot partnership program has three parts. i and phase one, nearly double- phase one, nearly 60 youth participate in the summer jobs program. in phase two, more than 1200 residents add six family net center and 100 small businesses will receive netbook computers loaded with links to local online content with sprint nextel offering both groups reduced prices for 3g and 4g wireless broadband services. in phase 3, nearly 270,000 smart community's residents will benefit from the partnership and will have access to new affordable broadband auctions. with the city of chicago and its partners assuming the customer
acquisition costs, sprint nextel is able to offer its service at the lower price required to connect with the previously unseen, underserved market of residents and businesses. accepting the award for mayor daley is the commissioner and chief information officer of the department of innovation and technology, and kimberly green- kerr, regional vice president of sprint nextel's midwest region. [applause] kimberly, would you like to
say something? >> i am back again. this is another great example of the private-public partnership. we understand that there's this whole initiative to run the digital divide, and those individuals in all your communities across the united states to do not have access to internet, in part of it is a financial barrier. but the other part of it is just awareness in the education component of that and what the internet can do for them. so we're committed to this partnership. it is a great model in the city of chicago. we like to replicate that as well. so thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. on behalf of mayor daley in the city of chicago, thank you for recognizing chicago's innovative smart communities program partnership with sprint. thank you, kimberly. an thank you to all the others at sprint for working together with us. and i lisk chicago and other
community partners to enhance the digital youth summer program summer3g service. the program would not be possible without strong support from sprint and other private sector sponsors, as well as investment from lisk, then the guards are foundation, the chicago community trust, the state of illinois, and the u.s. department of commerce. i look for to continuing the partnership to deliver affordable internet throughout the city of chicago. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, and congratulations to all of our winners. i am now pleased to introduce to you ambassador ron kirk, the u.s. trade representative and mayor of dallas from 1995 to 2001. he was a strong member of this organization, including heading
our committee on economic policy. as u.s. trade representative, he looks at trade as a jobs- creating teller of the economic recovery for our nation. mr. ambassador, we appreciate your focus on job creation, as well as on trade policies that assist small and medium-sized businesses. please join me in welcoming our good friend and supporter, ambassador ron kirk. [applause] >> well, thank you for the warm introduction, but thank you again for your extraordinary leadership of your city but also your great devotion to the u.s. conference of mayors. it is always one of the highlights of my year when i have an opportunity to come back and be with our fellow mayors. my staff at ustr tells me that
just about every other conversation i it begins with "when i was mayor." i think you can embrace the notion that once a mayor, always a mayor. they look like they're about to break out in hives over there. i think you understand. i am rarely at a loss for words, but i was intimidated by two factors. one was the knowledge that you have spent the morning with the president. i cannot imagine there's much more that i can add that would eliminate on any subject that he spoke with you about. but secondly, normally when i speak to a group, i spend most of the night learning about what i am going to say. knowing that i was going to be onstage with tom cochran, i spent most of yesterday wondering what to wear. [laughter] and i have got to tell you, this is kind of the way i dress. i do not know what effect the new mayors are having on tom. this is downright dowdy for him
but you have got to know that we love tom. tom has done a yeoman's work on behalf of the nation's mayors for decades and is one of the most respected voices for urban development and for the partnership between mayors and business, which is why we have this extraordinary business council, but also in helping those of us that the federal level to always be mindful that the roots that are on the ground creating the jobs, leading the path for economic development, often find their way to city halls and the nation's mayors. we appreciate everything that you have done and that you continue to do, and we look forward to working with you. it is great to see so many of you. you know i have during knowledge my mayor, tom lemberg, who was with you this morning but has made the decision not to run again. and for any other mayors for whom this may be their final formal meeting as a member of the conference of mayors, we thank you for your extraordinary se