tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 13, 2015 2:47am-6:39am EST
>> we will talk about what we just saw, but let me introduce who we have on stage. you will recognize some of them. , filmmaker and founder of loudspeaker films. kelvin davis.d like? s it i imagine it is difficult to watch this over and over again. i had to stop the tears. it was emotional, every time i see the film. host: when you look back and you
think about what could've what is the one thing that might have stopped this problem escalating? back, then i look only thing i think could have changed this is a people just listened. we just want to know why they want to search our son? if you just talk to us, then we might of said ok. then again, i don't know. it was just so frustrating. host: the reason we see all this is because your sister is filming all of this. on a cell phone. kelly: the way she actually post
it, she just pulled out her phone and started filming. it had a relationship with his family for some time. calvin was the last person on earth i'd ever expect to be arrested. we were already filming the family and continued to serve his growing up and beyond. we were filming his cousin and his parents. it just happened. i only knew the family, and when i heard the story, i thought, thank god i just filmed this. difficult. host: i was wondering if it would be hard to even get people to understand what happened that night if you were not able to
see it and listen to how people were talking past each other. kelly: when you hear the term assault on a police officer, that brings up a specific idea. all calvin did was question the police officer. he spoke. they said why do you want to why?to my son, is that illegal, is that assault? one thing i want to understand is the epilogue. you didn't see what happened after this in the film, you're taken into custody. i spent the night. host: and you are offered a choice, a deal. 32vin: the deal was duo
hours of community service and .ave the charges expunged host: why would you do this if he did nothing wrong? calvin: they got me a court-appointed lawyer. i thought this was a small case, i will take the court-appointed lawyer. the court-appointed lawyer, his your words "its against the police officer's words, and nine times out of 10, you won't win, so take the 32 hours of community service." host: did you talk to carla? i talked to her about it. she really wanted me to just .ight it, you know, fight it
i grew up in d.c. my whole life. the interactions between minorities and police officers, from what i know, is never good. after the 32 hours of community service, just be done with it. host: where did you do the service? calvin: a landfill. worksrtment of public landfill on michigan avenue. months tome two complete 32 hours at my pace. i finished it within the first month prior to going back to court. hours over four
consecutive weekends. that was at the landfill, cleaning up trash. ta-nehisi: so you fulfilled your community service. the deal would be expunged from the record. has it been removed? wife went and my through some family changes, and we have adopted two more boys. [laughter] [applause] seriously! the process of adoption, i don't know if anyone knows, it is strenuous. ta-nehisi: they do a full background check. calvin: it came up. luckily-- ta-nehisi: how are you informed? calvin: fingerprints.
luckily, it wasn't one of the them., it never stops the social worker let me know it came up. assaulting a police officer, you i had to explain my story to the social worker. ta-nehisi: how did you get that removed? calvin: there's something they call expungement, and you have to go to the courthouse, from what i've been told. you have to go there physically and set some type of date.
it's a trial where you can expunge all of the records. ta-nehisi: she said it will never be removed from your record. it is something that will always be popped up. calvin: so it's not expunged. it's just that only certain people can see it. extensivet to do an fbi background check, it will come up. if you do the local check, and i don't think it will -- if you do the local check, i don't to get well. so if you do a job interview? calvin: it will come up. technically, i was not convicted.
for state purposes, i will put yes so that i can explain to the employers. you put yes, you have an opportunity to explain to the employer? calvin: yes. ta-nehisi: the police officers who were involved, and i want to talk to about this, i'm sure they will have something to say about what they have seen in the film. officers, some of the gentleman there in a back alley, are people you might see as you move around the neighborhood. what have those encounters been like? armonte: i haven't encountered any police officers in the video recently.
school, home, work. ta-nehisi: you said you never write a bike anymore? armonte: not necessarily never write a bike, but when it's dark outside, when they can say i didn't have a light, i'd rather walk. [laughter] ta-nehisi: so you just don't want to get on a bike at all? armonte: just take a walk. ta-nehisi: you process something like this as young person? you live in a community where people feel like their encounters with law enforcement are negative and leave a bad taste in their mouth and sometime lead to going to jail. at the same time, people in the community are saying they need to make our streets safer and some people need to go to jail and police should come down hard
on them so we can sit on our porches so kids can go right there bikes, so they can play kick the can and can't all and things like that. kickball and things like that. what would you say to them? armonte: if needed for the situation, it's needed. riding a bike without a light is not a situation that is meaning. ful.eaning [applause] somebody getting hit by a car or getting shot or stabbed, that is what i think they should the -- where they i think they should be. it's just crazy. i'll be on the way to school and an and my friends, officer, he walked over there
yousaid, "what are looking at?" like, "we're just going to school." carlet: that's my first time hearing this. i would've been like, where is he? [laughter] armonte: he told his mom. his mom is a judgment of the courthouse is good she says she's on it to -- courthouse. she says she's on it. [laughter] [indiscernible] ta-nehisi: when you leave the , do theyrticularly now tell you, did they give you
advice, son, this is how you should handle yourself, these are the do's and don't? armonte: every day, get your familyne, come home, first. [laughter] everyday. we have an eight-year-old who mimics everything he does. since all this has happened, my eight-year-old, he is terrified the police. he will tell us, mom, the police are behind us. he is actually terrified. calvin: and it comes from that experience. ta-nehisi: how do you deal with
that? do you want your son to be afraid of placpolice? carlet: no. you have situations where you want the police in your neighborhood because you do have kids out there committing crimes for so many things that you do want the police in the neighborhood and you want police to be able to speak. but after he was in this real-life situation, how do we tell him that? it doesn't matter, i'm your mom, let me know, i will handle it. ta-nehisi: do you know any of the police officers in your community by name? armonte: no. carlet: one, but he's retired.
not to be provocative. what does that say? armonte: it says a lot, actually. calvin: i was having a conversation with kelly the other day leading up to this event. officers in these your duty is to protect and serve, and i was talking to kelly, we were having a formal conversation. i said when the officers come to these neighborhoods, their whole duty is to seek and destroy. that is what it seems like. the encounters, there is no positive encounters.
ta-nehisi: police officers, i have talked to many. they feel like there's a wall of hatred. they would like to bridge the gap. there have been studies and yell yale where they interview police officers, and it is interesting, what they can say to each other if they are alone in a room and have a chance to talk. birmingham, they were to meet in students police officers at a young age, and as they grow, they would remember them. some of those things i look at as soft approaches, but to those kinds of things make any sense to you? calvin: they do.
i just wanted to point out that prior to the incident, both parents were raising their children to be respectful of the police. he can't remember how the times he's been approached by police, walking his dog, riding the metro, the train, and at the next off, the police are there. carlet: it's the worst. you say the police are there for you, they're the good guys, and when you see the rest the film, you will hear them talk about that. you talk about the community, there is no accountability right there. even after the sergeant found
out what was happening, he still wanted to charge calvin with two crimes. where does it stop? it's incredible. i remember when he had the interview -- carlet: i remember when he had the interview, the cops wanted him to stay. was assault of a police officer and tampering with evidence. [laughter] calvin: i wanted to know what was the evidence? are you calling my son evidence? ta-nehisi: kelly, you've looked into the charge of assaulting a police officer. it is not always physical in nature? kelly: in the process of making aboutlm, i read a report
assault on a police officer and how the law is so vague here in peopleat nearly 4000 have been charged with assault on a police officer in d.c. or were charged between 2012 and 2014. 90% were black. the majority were not charged with anything else. just by talking with a police officer, you can be charged with assault. they are all black citizens. to can expect armonte believe and respect an institution the treats his father like that? ta-nehisi: we don't have much time left, but i wanted to make sure there was at least a little
bit of time for questions. you had your hand up. thank you. i want to say, as a citizen, i , if you have to teach not to look somebody in the eye, that is not american. i had a question. for the unmanned. -- youngou want to do man, what do you want do when you grew up? armonte: this is my senior year of high school. [applause]
my question is how did this affect you at school? is there a parallel structure to what you see with institutions of police? is there a parallel issue with education? -- how do you see it? armonte: i don't see it as a problem with school. it gets in the way. i don't feel as though i've been judged by the police, not everyday. it does not get in the way, you just have to be stronger, you have to want to go to school. you have to know the you might get the situation and you'll have to be above it and know what you're doing. ta-nehisi: we could go on, but
we have to move onto the next panel. i want to end by asking you a -- by having you ask a question that you would want law enforcement answer. calvin: law enforcement? ta-nehisi: what question would you post to people who work in law enforcement? why was my step dad arrested? what was the charge? ta-nehisi: is there anything you'd ask about how they do the job, not just that night? calvin?ut you, calvin: what question would i have for them? know, i beeno doing research about you know,
racial issues, with the u.s., and they change that law, in 2007, the one on assaulting police officers. i want to know, why, in 2007, they could make a change like that. prior to 2007, that law was specifically assaulting a police officer hands-on assault with a police officer. 2007, i want to know why did the law become so vague where people can actually get locked up for a long time, lose their jobs, and not be able to get a job because of that law? what happened in 2007? [applause] thank yi:
services with the department of justice. cathy lanier who is the chief of police for washington, dc. you.a lot of questions for try to make you nervous. >> i have seen the video. acting parts of the video. not all of it. i know there is still production going on with finishing the film. of course when i saw it, i try to do some research. was there a complaint filed? i believe it happened back in 2012.
i look to see if there was a complaint filed. what happened with the charges? i reached out to calvin. just because i felt like i should reach out to calvin and offer an opportunity to speak with the family about the incident. way inlearned the hard my career when i see video of something, and interaction with police and timidity members, i am not going to comment on that piece of video. there was no complaint filed, no investigation. i don't have the benefit of saying this was all looked into. comment ondon't those things anyway, because i make a comment on a piece of video, inevitably, another piece of video services. i will say about the
interaction, anytime i see an interaction between a community member and a police officer that ends badly. there are a lot of ways it can end badly. in this case, you have a family or a father saying my kids are now afraid of the police. anytime i see anything like that, it bothers me, because there are too many positive things that police officers do everything. interactions in the community. for one incident to change a families perception. to change a family' section. we have to make sure that does not happen. i say in terms of watching snippets of video i saw with calvin, it takes one or two small things to change the tone of an encounter with a police officer. sometimes it is the tone of the police officer. sometimes it is the way you say something. the way your body language when you approach.
starts, itension tends not to stop. the important thing for us as police officers to remember is be very conscious of the way you approach people. most people get defensive if you -- if they feel it you are being office of. be respectful and encounters. request not a crisis, versus the man's. those things change the dynamics. that is how we try to educate our police officers. you don't have authority and respect, just because you wear a uniform. [applause] the uniform is going to represent fear and oppression or hope and safety. you decide how people view that uniform. , someone to ask you
who is out there right now. when you're in an interaction with a community member, do you try to communicate with that in mind? what is your approach? >> my main approach is to engage the community, ask some questions. just walking my beat on a regular basis, i try to say hello, good morning. sometimes they ask how everything is with you. we engage in a conversation. my main approach is to get to know my community where i work at. because if something happens there, they are more likely to speak to me because they already know you. they minister to that officer, because they -- they may not speak that officer, because they don't know him. >> tell us a little bit. to know whymportant
to became a police officer. >> i always wanted to be a police officer. when i was going up, my mom owned a convenience store. i was around kindergarten at the time, but she was robbed at gunpoint at her bodega. she always told us a story about that. it was scary because i could've lost my mom that day. as time went on, a lot of my other family members -- one of grocerys owned a small in north camden. he was robbed and shot. he died from that wound. that impacted me. i was like that really hit close to home because i lost a loved one from an act of violence. from there, i knew i had to make a change in my community. i wanted to help and make a difference.
>> d you feel like you're making a change? >> -- do you feel like you are making a change? >> i do. when i speak to the children. i don't know what type of childhood their parents may have had. when i speak to them and they are like hello officer. how are you? them, theyou engage figure for themselves how they want to engage you. >> i was listening to chief lanier speak. i wonder, as a young person, what was it your perception was of the police? pitcher parents ? what wask with you your experience like? , shet me start by saying
is an outstanding officer. she had a meeting with president obama to talk to him about what it is like to be an officer. what community policing looks like. good community policing looks like. [applause] now for me, my father was a cop. i'm going to get muscle in trouble. i have protection that a lot of young men of color do not have. i could invoke that privilege. andcided to be useful knuckleheaded. -- to be youthful and knuckleheaded. i have two daughters. i stand corrected. absolutely. [laughter] now i stand here as a father.
now i work for the administration. people don't like to hear this. now that i stand here as a father, my son just started his freshman year in college. i remember when he first got his license, i was faced with a dilemma. to have this talk. i think this do when stopped by the police. i say that being very proud of the police. do a tremendous job and continue to do instrument his job. as a father, i still have to have that talk. now that my son is in college, i have multiple worries. one, he gets stopped. stopped.ly got he said the encounter went well. he was speeding, got the ticket. in that regard, it did not go
very well. [laughter] he is going to northwestern. major metropolitan area. after worry about bias. after worry about him going up, having a good time with his friends. fatherworry that every has and that is he doesn't bring me another grandchild until he is ready. i was not really -- when i grew up, i do not have to face some of the challenges. i grew up more privileged. as a father, i am concerned about it. as a society, it comes down to one question. the number one question we have to ask, whether as police chiefs , all of us, white or black, how do we see our young men of color? how do we view them? if we view them as a threat, then a lot of things become different. reaching for a drivers license youthfulger --
exuberance, it becomes willful defiance. a lot of things come out of our fear and bias. we need to answer the question how do we view our young men of color to make sure we treat everyone with respect. [applause] >> one thing we were talking about behind the stage. this is a theory of mine. we live in a society right now where it strikes me as an observer and a citizen, that police officers are called into maybeions in which, bringing someone into the criminal justice system, not the best answer. i said to you, i think about that case down the columbia. there are so many cases like
that we can see other societal things going on, be that some sort of drug issue. be that with walter scott where you start with the child support system. what is so often a mental health issue which is behind it. i wonder what your perspective is. are we asking our police officers too much? >> they have been pushing back on that for years. thely, policing has become drive through 20 for our mcdonald's of services. 47 365 days ay 20 year out in the community, available when crisis hits. when there is not other resources, it is the police will handle it. to some extent, the community,
if they do not know what the call, do call the police. i think there is a lot of things we in policing try the best we can to train and prepare for, but we know there are other people who are better for providing that service. if we could get police out of that business, we would. i think that is part of this. we have to look at laws, enforcement, enforcement versus regulation in some cases. you don't need a badge and a gun to regulate some things. >> can you make that concrete? >> there are some things that are violations of regulations where officers are sent out to enforce. minor violations of business regulations. criminal --n minor single sale cigarettes, things like that. these are things that you really
need to have a badge and a gun? are these things that are more regulatory? it eliminates the potential for things to go bad. there are a lot of things. we need the mental health training. we are warned to deal with people with a mental health crisis. they could dial another number rather than 911 and get a mental professional out. versus a police officer who has been trained but has been trained in a 40 hour course. we go beyond the arrest. for example, for the first time in 2014, we saw that our crime rates and arrest rates were down. as a committee, we have to accept and arrest do not equate to hoping safety.
we have to live take a look at our sentencing. how long we keep people in jail. this is an area where we are seeing great bipartisan support. it is costing us $80 billion a year. that is the kind of money they could be reinvested into providing services. 6000 for treatment. we're paying more to keep men in jail to give them a full scholarship to harvard. we need to look at our priorities and adjust accordingly so that we are preparing our young people across the board for society. we need to convince ourselves that we don't fall for the temporary satisfaction that comes with a lot of arrests that are made. they require you, the police department. working together to make your community safe. if you ask the police to do it, it is like saying all i have to build this house is a hammer. it is going to go one direction and one direction only.
>> i was in this discussion with a criminal justice partner the other day, and there was a discussion about investing in drug treatment. once people get into the system. the solution for the criminal justice partners is for us to try and put ourselves out of business. isn't that ultimately the goal? you should have the investment long before the person gets into the system. challenges even more difficult. profession.y my more investment in social services and less investment and -- less investment in policing and incarceration is the long-term goal. >> i have to ask you guys, you alluded to this bipartisan moment. there is a lot of interest in overall criminal justice reform. thatder -- i think
consensus is built on thin ice. compared to 20 years ago, the crime rates are much lower than they were. yet, we have heard quite a bit about this effect. in this moment, you got a black lives matter movement, filming police officers. -- there is a direct relationship between those two things. i wonder what you guys make of it? >> one, we assigned to see spikes in violence in certain cities around the country. we have a obligation to do the research to find out why. we go to the root cause. i want to be careful, it has a notion that suggest that americans finest that you're looking at will not do their job i reject.
i don't think that is what's happening. the automatic connection between an activity and crime, we know through history we should not make that connection it we need to find out more data. we need to research. we need to ask the tough questions. but we need to have a conversation so we can have the courage to ask tough questions. spike,h we are seeing a 40 to 50till amid some year lows and crimes. before we jump on the bandwagon of an epidemic of violence. what is most heartening for me, i am listening to my colleagues saying we need to do it by not trying to arrest our way out of crime. the idea that policing in a democratic society means that public scrutiny is not a threat to policing is the foundation of it.
you need to demand the community to hold policing accountable. the greatest exertion of -- it has authority to be scrutinized and if a weighted. we have to do it fairly so that the officers are treated with dignity and all sides of the story are heard before we make our assumptions. >> i agree with him. >> ok. before we go to questions, i would to put this to you. -- i would like to put this to you. if you see folks filming you on your camera phone, does that affect your willingness to do your job? >> i act the same way if i am off camera or on camera. i always treat everybody with dignity and respect. i can see where we are going. here we go. beautiful.
inso, if both officers were the video, what would you guys ?o differently what would you do? >> are you asking about the calvin video? i have only seen bits and pieces. i will say this. in 25 years i have been policing here. i started in 1990 when we had a huge violent crime issue in the district. quickly thaty sometimes the simplest of things can turn a normal encounter between a police officer and a community member into a bad direction very quickly. i say the simplest of things, it is the tone of voice or the way you approach a person.
perceive that they that you perspective -- that you respect them. that goes both ways. respect or aack of tone that an officer uses. to -- i have spent wherejority of my career someone is in a crisis situation, i am respectful of the fact that i'm entering someone's home or community where there is already something bad happening. i have to be the one that makes the effort to calm things. be respectful. bring things back down to a tone where we can have a reasonable discussion first. >> i think we have time for one more. >> i am forficer --
-- i was anacostia where we were harassed by police officers. we had a sergeant called to the scene. he continued to harass the other organizes. i asked the officer about his tone and his level of respect. i said sir i have been in de-escalation training. he said to me we don't have de-escalation training. verbal judo. i like you to speak to what verbal judo is. and why we don't have de-escalation training for the metropolitan police department. [applause] the first question i would an, if ever you have interaction with a police officer and you don't feel it was appropriate for any reason,
i would encourage you to make sure you file a complaint so that the police department can look into it. outside deckbody and take a look. before de-escalation was called de-escalation, because it has been taught in police academies since i came on here at it has evolved over the years. while we areach it in defensive tactics. we try to teach it while we are in scenario-based trainings. be about ar had to 10 to 12 year veteran. was one of the best de-escalation trainings that was out there. it was taught nationwide. i don't know whether it was sarcasm or what.
>> can you tell us what verbal judo is? >> is that arouses the 1990's. -- it has been around since the 1990's. you redirect energy. that is what it was designed to do. since that time, it is been modified. we both kind of smiled, because that is going back a few years. still put officers through. when they go for the annual training, we still put them through de-escalation training as a part of their ongoing training. if you want to give me information, i would encourage you to do so. we can look into it. [indiscernible]
that it saves them money in training and all of that. is that true echo is that the reason why it appears that black people and others are being treated less than human as enemy? >> let me start with that one. happy belated veterans day. we provide a lot of grants for hiring. we support the hiring of veterans. womenare young men and who sacrificed a lot for this country. we have an obligation to help them return to the community and provide support for them. we also know that in many cases the military understands disciplinary. the training, not the idea that it's a veteran. the diversity of our force is pretty strong. many of the volunteers are young men of color and women of color. i would be cautious about making that assumption.
where i would be agree with you -- where would i agree with you militarizet need to the police. >> the military is teaching community policing. doesilitary quite service not afford you any opportunity the sameill have hiring requirements. you still have to go through the same police academy. what it does for me in washington is -- we have a 60 college credit requirement here to some of our men and women go off into the military and they don't go to college. this affords folks the opportunity to come into the police department. >> [indiscernible] >> these are local community members.
the military has been training committee policing for the last eight to 10 years. that there is a feeling communities are being treated as the enemy,, that may be the case depending where you are living. the only thing i would say is i don't think it would be accurate to attach one segment of leasing being veterans. that's one segment of policing being veterans. how are they relating to the community? i know as a former police chief, looking at the men and women have come from service. i am a veteran. my daughter is a veteran. excuse that the department is not engaging in treating the community right. we should be cost us before we make that automatic blanket, but
i understand that concern. >> thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. ♪ >> on the next washington journal, for the -- former democratic presidential candidate, lawrence lessig. his views on finance. michelle malkin and john miano -- and we will take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> baker says to them, i want to be a congressman. i think you are using this as a stepping stone to the senate.
george h.w. bush says i am not using this as a stepping stone to the senate, i want to be president. this is 1965. he is 41 years old. he has yet to win a race. he has had a sense of destiny. >> saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span twos book tv. the conversation between jon meacham and george w. bush about the life of the president's father, george herbert walker bush. also on saturday, it is the louisiana book festival with nonfiction author visitation. -- nonfiction author presentation. book,offman and his beyond freedom's reach. sunday night at 9:00 on afterward, from a congressman patrick kennedy shares his personal journey with mental illness and substance abuse.
>> i was convinced that no one could pick up on the fact that i was sweaty. i was perspiring. was furtive and moving around and agitated. i totally thought no one knew. >> he is interviewed by jim mcdermott from washington state. book tv, television for serious readers. >> next, conservative legal experts and supreme court observers discuss the court tenures after chief justice john roberts took the helm. this is 90 minutes. >> this is 90 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. we have to get started. the microphone is apparently on. wow. okay.
welcome to those of you watching on c-span. my name is rachel brand. for those of you who may not be familiar with the society, we are members of an organization that provide rigorous debate on issues of legal debate and policy. for many of us in the room, room, this is the organization brought to our law schools and continues to provide continuing and provocative topics. i am standing here today because i am chairman of the litigation process group. we plan the panel you are about to hear. there were 15 practice groups divided by subject matter. they're responsible for a large part of the programming throughout the year. for those of you who might be interested in getting more involved, i would make a pitch to get involved in the practice
group. if you're interested in that you can find me afterward. i've been asked to remind you that certain panel conferences including this one are being live streamed. if you can't be here in person, you don't have to miss out entirely. with that i would like to turn to our partners today. i'm very delighted with the panel we have put together. i'm really looking forward to this discussion. the panelists that are going to reflect today on the first executive of roberts court come from diverse perspective. we have a journalist, and academic, a practitioner and a former staffer. think. thank you all for being here. with that i'll turn that over to our moderator. [applause]. thank you rachel for that introduction. the ten years that chief justice roberts led the court have seen
decisions that have affected important aspects of our cultural, religious and political lives. our panel today will discuss not only the chief justice but also the nomination process and what effect he has had on the other justices and whether it should be called roberts court or perhaps the kennedy court or some people might say be a leader court. in the ninth circuit, we will refer to it as the court of reversal. [laughter] because over those ten years the supreme court has reversed the ninth circuit city in 78% 78% of the appeals it excepted from our circuit. [applause]. to paraphrase a former solicitor
general, it has been suggested that one could open a third petition by saying this is a petition to review a judgment of the court of appeals for the ninth circuit and there are other reasons also to reverse. [laughter] but enough about the ninth circuit. our panelists will discuss the important decisions which are seen as consistent with the judicial philosophy of the roberts court and how those perhaps of brought surprises to the presidents who have nominated the justices. we have a distinguished panel today and we will hear from each panelist. they will exchange questions and i will take questions from the audience. first we have stephen mcduff field. he is vice president for policy at cross roads gts and president
of the m gate strategy here in washington. he worked for senator john kyle on the republican policy committee during the judge roberts nomination and confirmation. he is going to discuss the expectations regarding his role at the time he was confirmed in 2005. next we have jen crawford who is a correspondent for cbs news and also a graduate of the university of chicago law school. she covers the supreme court regularly and published a book in 2007 entitled supreme conflict, the inside story of the struggle for control of the united states supreme court. she is going to speak about how justice roberts tenure on the court has coincided with and emerged from public expectation at the time he was confirmed. we are also joined by mike, a
partner at jones day. he has argued numerous cases before the supreme court. he is going to discuss some of the hot button issues during his tenure including affordable care act and affirmative action cases. last but not least, we have professor malt michael paulson. he is a professor at the school of law in minnesota and has written extensively on constitutional interpretation. he is knowledgeable about the religious freedom jurisprudence and has 2 degrees from yale, one in divinity. he will also offer some thoughts on the direction that the supreme court mike taken the next administration. without let's begin with stephen. [applause].
>> thank you judge, i am honored to be part of this panel today. i was a lawyer in the senate for senator john kyle in his leadership office during a crazy time in nominations, 2003 - 2006. for those who those who weren't in that particular vortex, that included democrats filibuster of nominees, republican threats to eliminate the filibuster of lower court nominees in what is now called the nuclear option. the infamous gang of 14 settlement dispute and the sobering experience with another nomination. i have been invited to set the stage for how it was that john roberts was viewed in the senate and what the expectations were for him from the perspective of the senators who confirmed him.
abby's lead on speed for any senator but these are my good-faith impressions of that expense. prevents go back to the summer of 2005. the most important thing to understand is that there was a great deal of concern for any supreme court nominee would be blocked by filibuster. republicans had just 55 votes. many of us believed that democrats would hold together to block all of the most moderate nominees. nominees who conservative senators themselves could not support. in other words we fear disaster. as a consequence of this fear, the staff spent many months working on how to frame a supreme court nomination. any nomination. the arguments would be the same regardless of who it was. in fact, i am sure everyone recalls then judge roberts analogy of judging an empire and calling balls and strikes. the first time i heard that analogy was not from judge roberts but a few months before in bill fritz conference room. the republican council shared the analogy in almost the same
language judge roberts would later use. i suppose it's possible that as they took notes and never shared this idea with judge roberts, but call me a little bit skeptical. if you don't believe me as many of you don't like to do just blame congress. keep in mind there are serious consequences of messaging and framing in filibuster. there was far much attention given on the republican side to understanding the nuances of john roberts judicial philosophy. we were working on how to shape the debate to prevent filibuster. let's go back to the time buster. timeline. the president nominates john roberts soon after. senators really like john roberts. they thought he was brilliant and they also just liked his
style. my personal view is that he excited many senators because they reminded them so much of what they wish they could be themselves. somebody who was smooth, cool under pressure and a phenomenal communicator. they wished they could be more like him but at the same time few at the time, at least in the senate felt judge roberts was an improvement over justice o'connor. enthusiasm grew as betting continued and they became less vocal in opposition. i think we all agree he was a substantial improvement. the hearing occurred in the kennedy caucus room. john roberts sat patiently while they made opening statements the
camera and forwarding gave a brief statement of his own that stunned everyone. he discussed beautiful language of his childhood and the promise of endless possibility. he was fermentable. the fight if there ever was to be one was over that day. the next two days of q&a were just defense. the nominees, and senators. he gave proof that he mastered the law. it was also rather dry. he spoke 26 and a half minutes of his 30 minutes before he asked a question. we kept track. i must say we learned that his favorite movies were doctor zhivago and north by northwest.
nothing illustrates the hearing better than judge roberts answer to a simple question. he asked what would you like history to say about you? characteristically his first response was a bit cheeky. he said i have my transcript, i'd like to say he was confirmed. perfect, right. the audience laughed. then he said actually, the answer is the same. i would like them to say i was a good judge. what does that mean? we didn't really know except there was a firm sense that they shouldn't bring their policy into judgments. senators saw they were getting a very smart man who contrary to his opening statement was an excellent politician.
oh, zero, that guy is good. people were impressed. there was a sense he could be an institutionalist that he truly loved the court but i'm not sure any senator had any idea what that would mean in practice. it's interesting then, about something he said in his opening statement. he said, if i'm confirmed, i will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the supreme court. i will work to ensure it in upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties for all americans. so concern for the court and coupled with the rule of law and liberty. at least in the sentence, they placed them in parallel. let me also read what he had to say about results oriented judging. during questioning,, judge robert said if a judge is
results results-oriented, it's about the worst thing you could say. what you're saying is you don't apply the law to tell you what the results should be. you don't go through the judicial decisional process. you don't look to the principles that are establish in the constitution or the law. you look to what you think the results should be and then you go back and try to rationalize it. that's not the way the system is supposed to work. it's been great to see the elephant in the room. these words are interesting giving popular opinion. i'm going to let others sort out the same-sex marriage case. the transcript provides other clues. a judge should start with the text. in response again, he said i think you folks, i think when you legislate, you do have
>> >> president bush had been given a historic opportunity to change the supreme court in a way his father had failed to do so even president reagan. if you know, the story of the supreme court or the rehnquist court is one of disappointment seven of nine justices by republican presidents as they failed to wittier of their judicial
principles. many victories of liberals that be don't need to getting a chair after lunch but obviously some of the justices worked as conservative as people have hoped and that is a frustrating term of the judicial conservatism principles there were never that conservative to begin with and he wore a three piece suits and earned were polite. [laughter] but novio philosophy. and perhaps that would be the story of justice o'connor and justice kennedy and failed to provide the key vote that would have
started to turn back to a more conservative direction from the excesses' of the warren court and the justices you did have strong philosophical views in unexpected ways who i believe is the most egregiously mischaracterized figure probably in our generation. [applause] and i have written about -- about this a law in the book and it is interesting because it is where the narrative and is he is the intellectual under study inferior in that narrative is false and obvious not only by reading his opinion
but in the papers of the library of congress you can see thomas taking key positions as he changes his vote to join justice thomas. when i talk about this in speeches especially on the west coast, to talk about justice thomas because it is an outrage the way it continues to be perceived in the press that when i start to tell the story nobody wants to hear it. that is the tremendous disservice to a man but also to my profession that is something that is outrageous but it has affected the court in unexpected ways with his strong conservative views is certainly she was
going that way so the rehnquist court was a disappointment for conservatives in years george bush with a historic opportunity to representative previous presidents have failed to do with justice o'connor shocked everyone to say she was opinion before the chief justice. he had to get a right to rely on some very smart people and john roberts took us back. it is funny almost like we came full circle. who is john roberts? ten years ago i was one including on the panel wondering if he would be a judicial conservative than i was convinced that he was.
confirmation hearing. then here we are in these decisions it is fascinating is to get through the details as this unfolds but how does obamacare and same-sex marriage it would be complete the complementary and not at all inconsistent or should not reach out to take a back seat to the legislature he would say it is perfectly consistent with his testimony. he had an interesting exchange with a strict constructionist. but what was he sent with
those principles and not engage in all so at the time to think that is a very savvy answer. as this panel will show and we will just talk about john roberts but the roberts court more broadly with justice alito his opinions are beautifully written his time on the bench has been an enormous asset with the oral argument is penetrating and uniquely different than some of the heather justices
and how often justice kennedy will jump in to ask an attorney what is your answer to justice alito question? [laughter] so he has been from president bush's perspective of:replacing justice o'connor but white is the roberts court after 10 years? it is almost too soon to say but how they will affect us dynamics on the court will resolve justice thomas, the court that change the dynamic so in many ways it is too soon to tell so i thought about the weather was the tour's dubai publisher and i decided not to because i think it is too
soon. there is a snapshot and that's snapshot is being developed but as this court establishes itself whether or not it has any consistent themes this score will change if you talk about a presidential election to get those possible appointments for those justices the presidents will be in their 80s and these are conservative justices who very well may be stepping down.
while john roberts has ben frustrating for many conservatives, if a democrat wins the white house he may be writing a law more distant -- dissent. on that happy note. [applause] >> i will pick up on that happy new. >> really a the chief justice had nine if he had eight liberal he would have an entirely different legacy than conservative if prior to ruth 2005 that was the kennedy o'connor court it
largely has been the kennedy court to take the direction of the law and i am worried it could become kennedy's late robert scorched with the jurisprudence the brings to be affordable care act it is too early to tell of that but it wasn't john roberts replacing chief justice rehnquist with their principal conservative replacing the state legislature with continuity and principles of the law that has affected the various areas of light due to chat about briefly.
first is the substance over the last 10 years isn't an approach to judging how chief justice roberts like people all of scalia and thomas and i was a star with the good stuff because i in the and -- she turned optimist taking baby steps to the rule of law and obviously if the election goes wrong next year in and of that will matter. [laughter] you can make an argument with some relationship that people actually listen to and that is nice the areas they think we made some decent progress in parts of
the roberts court for cry will start with free-speech i will touch upon each of these very light the citizens united rosa brilliant landmark twin hands of marketplace to join a libertarian approach with us decision that they certainly have reenforce some basic principles of free speech. somewhat controversial but the point at least with respect to political and ideological and scientific debate another reason is because we allowed the orwellian truth ministry to end -- to go into the
marketplace of ideas. so these reflect the inclination and the court to gore as far as it wants to go except the affordable care act with has a libertarian approach that is where the corps will go. we had a step backwards that was the worst since the '70s where chief justice roberts wrote a restrictive opinion of the rights of judges to solicit campaign contributions we will modify that first amendment but that mode of analysis is a dramatic departure and if anybody takes it seriously
could dramatically undercut first amendment protection. >> and with very good marks where the court has gone but to enhance this relative to the state justice scalia wrote in his opinion unless they single out for differential treatment with religious practice so with a statute that restores the protections and there we saw
with the hobby lobby case where they've indicated the rights of employers of the other mandates from the affordable care act. we saw a similar development that is the departure will said neutral regulations you cannot infringe of religious institutions that the establishment clause area but to have a strong history of doing so that it is the litmus test that there is day approach and that should be but it does not violate
the establishment clause if you give religious organizations funding you don't have to discriminate to rolling out social welfare money. with a strong degree of confidence there will be five votes for that if it comes up. >> it is a mixed bag of racial equality. indeed area of racial preference as the cases have said to take a 25 your vacation from the 14th amendment. [laughter] you can discriminate only one to from a protected minority group that does not
share the view so we'll find out the fisher case of provinces and higher education in there is a number of ways from the state based racial discrimination without overturning the michigan cases. with the critical months to apply some evidence that the chief 14 percent minority representation or 10% initially has some educational value and as the counter intuitive notion as
long as they have some proof that i think they to go long way towards restoring command of the constitution. because said bubbled up a couple of years ago the supreme court waited to issue an opinion and literally said nothing but why don't you take another look at this? and i think it'll be interesting to uc to put to the equal protection analysis. them the big surprise that is the charitable to justice kennedy with the fair housing act that was a real surprise to me because of the voting area justice
kennedy seemed to firmly understand the position in a region not turn statutes to say you must take account of race to sort out government benefits of a racially proportionate basis but the last year in texas he took a big step backwards you laced the opinion to say don't turn this into a quota but one week later issued a bunch of regulations that turned into a quota. for the reasons we articulated it will tell you how they will handle racial issues going forward of the statutory context.
learning that the second amendment to deny the rights of fire -- firearms but to never take a follow-on case to the scrutiny and a closely divided court that was probably the best thing this court has done the decision a same-sex marriage was about as flawless as you to be the provision justice kennedy provoked you cannot deny life liberty or property without due process
with the contextual analysis coming from hallmark greeting card. [laughter] >> not what we were accustomed to override the tradition and i have a distinct prejudice but the other hallmarks of lawlessness was king vs. burrow. to hold the affordable care act to a jury that to a normal conservative to argue
plausibly was referring to congress with a presidential election year there is no such excuse of integrity to have six members of the porch to be very reminiscent with respect of the civil rights act where northman south and east and west and i thought one thing we would accomplish is to interpret statutes and the arguments you should not too -- deferred to policy choices that these are the policy choices of the legislature for four years ago along
with the naked policy preference to change what though law meant to the opposite. this is where a chief justice roberts was from the case that upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act purports try not to take either position personally but the fascist conspiracy theories is dizzily from when i am available all. [laughter] and the other areas in terms of their departure from the text with the arguments for the court is establishing a code or state with the death
penalty life without parole context dictating to elected representatives and how they were mentally challenged as murderers to establish a code and eddie's serious argument must've been inflicted as cruel and unusual in another opinion that is not terribly unpredictable with its consequences but an assault on the constitution of the redistricting case will sell legislature now popular in did not the legislature so literally two days after the decision came down and met with justice roberts during descent how dare they distort the word to achieve broader purposes of the constitutional. [laughter] proving yet again the
supreme court is the irony free zone. [laughter] confirming the personal animus maybe. [laughter] so that is the big picture and think the biggest difference between chief justice roberts and conservative members of the court is an emphasis on incrementalism and i can walk you through how he has done that were they taken a small step in and come back to rent and profits - - prefaced this time to decide a case that i've actually arguing to cast doubt on the tested -- constitutionality of the public unions from those who don't belong on the first amendment grounds
not have that case represents a few should overturn the precedent that was previously upheld. i am not entirely sure if there should be a conservative principle that says income angeles and is preferable to the scalia approach. but you could have written brown v. board of education in 54 black schools were clearly on an equal with the plessey the ferguson the way they did not satisfy the standard but the problem is that you keep in place the foundational province contrary to that text structure in the long run cannot be good for the development of the law of
the institutional integrity of the court. this last point i will make all the resume ambiguity whether of the institutional integrity of the court in my mind any time you hear a judge talk about the court as opposed to the law should send a warning signal because if you are worried about the integrity of the porch then just do what in a neutral way in a neutral manner if you start changing your view of the law or to modify your view because you're worried about public perception of a court bacchanal the invite the notion you're not interpreting the text of legal materials in the interview but a scale that favors one party or policy view over another.
the by definition and decreases the integrity because it just reduces to another legislative body where decisions are made rather than neutral principles but is always a worrisome sign this is too early to you to know which way chief justice roberts jurisprudence would develop generally it is favorable there are a couple of exceptions and if we lose the next election or not matter at all. thank you. [applause] >> i am honored to be here this has been an existence since 1982 that i discovered they were creating this is
you should not exactly a founding father but maybe if founding nephew second generation of. [laughter] i will build on a law of what has been said but i will move beyond that to think of the future of the roberts court. the title i have been given my remarks is a question though worry there is not a test. what's conservative about the roberts court? i agreed the idea marking the beginning of periods or epics is distorting in some ways but it is a convenient marker to look at the personnel changes and ask a question has the court really become ideologically more conservative? my answer is no.
not very much not much of the ideological change since 2005 when john roberts was first sworn in. but three solid conservatives of rehnquist and scalia a solid block of four liberals and by the time of the 2005 then you had to swing justices o'connor and kennedy i call them a weathervane because they swing with the cultural wind with conservative instincts but not a principled coherent portrait -- a loss of these then you
have the substitutions and a layout maya nine upcard then you have generally mainstream consistently conservative replacing and other mainstream consistently conservative that switches from roberts to request -- rehnquist and the material may change in some sense that is though little unfair it is like a double switch they came in at the same time he was supposed to command for o'connor that we have an episode from october 2005 where bush was flirting with the different nominee the then justice alito was put forward that this material because it does substitute a solid judicial conservative
for a liquid or gaseous because o'connor was of a principled solid conservative. so that would change as you move from the swing justice and that makes a difference where kennedy would have voted with conservatives there are some issues you means conservative some with o'connor said you substitute one vote for either kennedy would be with the conservative anyway. that is basically the list michael did so could i will ballpoint but the changes have been few and far between and interspersed between a law of importance
defeats for the constitution so these are mostly cases where kennedy with the light -- lean right to one in chin's campaign finance which was a first amendment disaster to ruth citizens united which is a triumph that is the single most notable change that is attributable to justice alito the boat abortion the partial birth abortion ban and upheld into those seven a federal ban on partial birth abortion it is baby steps. the court is moving in the right direction but it is hard to see. religious freedom there has been an important change the
unanimous supreme court decision which right think undermines the premises of the employment division of the smith case will become important in the future and sam alito o opinion in the hobby lobby case five / four was extremely important in the interpretation with religious freedom against government regulation. and mixed results on the enumerated powers i am one of the heretics that think it was rightly decided decided s not my policy preferences but it is my interpretation.
[laughter] >> we will talk about that but even in defeat there is a conservative victory that the court did adopt to put meaningful limits with the dramatic new restriction of the scope of government spending power to coerce states with executive power the regulatory group that i think is huge for separation of powers it says the president cannot rewrite was the congress to effectuate desired policies outcome is the scalia opinion it is brilliant and important it is a sleeper victory.
this is the litigation group but there have been meaningful changes of territorial jurisdiction to have a practical impact in the federal courts is victories are few and far between dramatic liberal results some of the most awful cases the war prisoner case from the bush administration absolutely indefensible and precursors to the same-sex marriage case of windsor in 2013. the four democratic appointees of the supreme court when kennedy joins him
it is not the roberts corporation the kennedy court so i will conclude with lessons from the next conservative president flew cares about the constitution to look for word to the next 10 years of the roberts court and on inauguration day there will be three justices in their eighties and one in their late seventies and the opportunity for some meaningful changes in all likelihood. ideology matters judicial philosophy matters to have substantial power what the philosophy is to that property makes a huge difference to the country in the future of the nation and the constitution sometimes literally a matter of life and death do you support - - point to the supreme
court we ended up with david souter in 1980 if you had edith jones then roe v. wade is overruled by a vote of six / three because the weather vane will swing the other way. did you have a conception to save millions of lives it does make a huge difference if you succeed to confirm and it makes a huge difference whether you have justice sotomayor or recessions or justice kagan or cavanaugh. ideology matters in the objection will come this
sometimes you cannot know in the vance sometimes it is considered not proper to ask were not politics but my answers are yes you can know that in advance fairly reliable it is necessary and proper to ask for course you can know how they will be as justices on the supreme court i don't think it is bragging or a special skill but give me 10 minutes i will tell you how they are likely to be on the supreme court i will not have everything right but they will not disappoint well settled expectations to put its foreign debt questions to a then you can tell in advance the difference between scalia and justice
souter. it is proper to ask these questions sometimes to look at judicial independence with the constitution is of function of salary guarantee of life tenure that should be the assurance of this additional autonomy. beside the gives the explicit political confirmation m process as part of the separation of powers and checks and balances to become the obligation of the senate to be the proper view of constitutional interpretation with all the powers at their disposal. into favor the most extreme version of the litmus test
just give me one question to ask in individual justice with the maximum amount of information i talk about roe v wade if they can make president and star a decisive is where the debris of relationship of judicial power and it is entirely appropriate to push these questions for word and should be obligatory. i will leave it there so we have some time but they give for your attention. [inaudible conversations] mcdevitt. [applause] [applause] >> with a period of questions and answers i appointed myself to start.
we have the two cases and the interpretation what is not attacks on monday is a tax on tuesday when you include the word federal in the second case there is another case where the legislature includes the enactment now is contextualism dead and the justice roberts give any indication? >> i don't think he did i have the transcript you get some hint it decide to go
backwards to look big issue find yourself looking backwards but has a went through it thinking back and remember that being teed up with no discussion what that would look like but then you have a the conversation of history but extended to which you would focus it would mean something different, no. we have no discussion that i could find like the first a see a case. they are not teed up because i think the hearings are taking place in a certain moment of time so now there's a law of discussion
of key though. or the more recent cases to be discussed at the same time people think of that in a narrow sort of way in terms of those. i noted is dead but they don't seem inclined to be with those doctrines of the interpretation with that format so that consequence is that they're not elaborated upon very much to sit there to have a simple view that is simple and
straightforward about policy preferences to explain the contours of how you get there. with the senate judiciary committee they have touched a job than there is the normal institutional part of the nominee people are interested to know they are conservative but they will not engage in a hostile cross-examination and john roberts and alito would run circles around anyone after a superb performance budget
justice alito enveloped the committee in the warmest bath of boredom. [laughter] that was everyone. [laughter] so the notion that the democratic senator like joe biden. [laughter] would figure his jurisprudence is unrealistic. >> because think about how john roberts answer the question. that it is subject to the principles of star a decisiveness that they heard different -- different
was some back-and-forth of the caribbean to the question he said i am happy to answer the question then said north by northwest. he was angry as was his counsel. because they really tried really hard to figure out how to pin him down and get enough information about his judicial philosophy to how to rule on the case. they thought they had him. and he slipped right by then he made a joke out of it.
but it was not a joke for senator schumer or the other side there were very frustrated. >> i am not sure the senate confirmation hearings are the best evidence to throw out traditional ideology you do that in one-on-one conversations with people who understand these issues in the right questions to be asking and looking for. my critique is the way the republicans administration tests seemingly failed to put a direct simple straightforward questions. >> they figure that out in the interviews they live. [laughter] the reagan administration judicial screening. yes it begins to be overturned. good. have some coffee. [laughter] nobody would say it is
correct you get there different ways but i thank you need a track record with the justice department or the state attorney general or on the bench justice souter was a completely self-inflicted wound. i'll think it is the hard to teach them how to but the crucible of the white house interview process. >> think of justice alito he has never written a wrong opinion and his confirmation hearing he was the big fight nominated on halloween anybody said it is scary and an american track there is the track record and opinions and on and on and
his performance was so masterful. and you cannot have scripted it any better when his wife started to cry it was like they were ready undergoing to beat him and they could never strike never. by the way he did not read one word of their briefing books they prepared so the lesson that i think if you get that nominee confirmed his track record picasso thinking of the nominee robert bork was there with nectar red gum at the time.
[laughter] >> we still have the senate in 86 to have gotten through so little quirks like that. >> we have to close at 145 punctually so if you have questions please stand up and go to the microphone please identify yourself and the person to answer the question. >> every real property attorney from idaho. generally is the specific you think the decision of possibility drives the results but the larger question does the roberts court move into a position
government for doing otherwise would it needs to do. >> justice alito recently spoke to a gathering in he mentioned his distress in the free speech cases of course, he was the one dissent and he mentioned the video case. would you like to see a distinction between self expression and free speech? do you think he will be
influential with the other members of the court and what controversy might be decided differently? >> i think that justice alito narrow interpretation of freedom of speech does raychem the allied air with the court it is it's something he does often but in that aspect a pro freedom of speech position more than anyone on the court and is in a reliable place for freedom of expression is to send in the crashes and legal society was a powerful defense of freedom of expression and expressive
that may have information. my short answer is i have no idea. >> scalia did not appreciate it. i don't know he would've taken it. in his defense, but no. what's interesting i think, another interesting question is everything has to line up. getting struck by lightning, getting nominated to the court. it depends on whether the
democrats or republicans control the senate. to me, if he had stepped down, when we all thought he was going to, and really he should have, would john roberts have been the menominee? if rehnquist had gone first question? , my guest would've been no. when the president saw him performing as he did and it was rehnquist on the eve of his hearing passing away, it had been contested. it was easy easy for the president to move roberts into that spot paving the way for that legal powerhouse harriet miers, which no one is mentoring her name so i have to throw it out there. i think the court would look quite different had rehnquist step down. >> you gotta do it woman, let's throw harriet out there for a couple weeks. high-stakes poker but i have to give you credit.
>> so in his dissent and over felt, they criticize the new york case more than ten times. that's a case that more and more conservative legal scholars seem willing to embrace. my question for the panel is what world you think that case will play the next appointee should a republican win the election. >> you said lochner quest mark. >> i'd say zero. i just don't see anybody on the court, including justice thomas going toward a notion of substantive due process that gives it the same kind of protection to economic rights as been given to abortion and that sort of thing because they think in my view that lockley was wrongly decided and economic regulationsñi, in today's sociey is really, really stupid that
the constitution doesn't deprive states of federal governance of the ability to enact really stupid economic regulation. >> okay last question and to the rear of the microphone. >> some of you talked about citizens united. what is your sense of this in cases like mccutchen, free enterprise club, citizens united, who, who is the swing vote? >> who's the last one to come on board? >> i think you need to take those individually. we all know there was a famous dispute between justice scalia and justice roberts about the wisconsin right to life. again scalia takes the approach that you need to destroy the village to save it. chief justice takes the approach to keep the structure there that
but make sure it doesn't mean anything. i'm sort of on the scalia side of that debate. if there's a fundamentally incompatible with first amendment rights than it should be cleaned up not through this incremental stuff your question, chief justice roberts was reluctant to take the steps that they ultimately took as quickly as justice coolio wanted him to but eventually he came around to it. it's really interesting, if the solicitor general had not given the completely truthful answer that yes this means you couldn't publish a book criticizing hillary clinton, the corporation couldn't do it, we may have had a different result. that's what led to rethinking
>> steve lombardo recently talked about the activities and their influence on elections. after making remarks he took questions. this is 45 minutes. this is abou. on behalf of faculty, staff, and stints at the new hampshire institute of outtakes, i would like to welcome you and thank you for joining us at this morning's event. our goal at the institute is to engage students in political life and strengthen democracy.
not endorse political issues or candidates. this morning speaker, steve lovato, is a graduate of the class of 1981. he achieved his masters in public policy at st. louis university. he's the chief marketing officer at koch industry. this morning, he will be presenting a talk entitled "bey ond the political stem." following his speech, we'll have a reef question and answer. . please wait until the student ambassador with a microphone reaches you before asking a question. please welcome steve lombardo. [applause] mr. lombardo: thank you all. i appreciate those comments. it is a pleasure to be here.
i understand donald trump will be here tomorrow. it may be a similar sized audience for that. in the spirit of donald trump, i will estimate this audience at 5000 people. is ok with that? [laughter] mr. lombardo: it is great to be here. i think it was maybe 30 years that i walked across the stage on this campus and accepted a diploma from st. anselm college. it is a special place. it is great to be back and see what has gone on here. scope, it is just amazing. it is really terrific to be back. i graduated with a degree in political science. ,he lessons i learned from that the professors i learned from,
the ethics classes, the instilled oney young people like myself, it really has stayed with the my entire life and career. it has been a few years since i have been back, but the amazing growth on campus and the people are as vibrant as ever. i've worn a number of hats in my life and career. i currently serve as communications and marketing officer for coke industries. our principal shareholders are charles and david koch. that name will either cause you to shutter or smile depending on your political perspective. i want to talk to you about the company i work for, the people i work for, what they stand for, what they do. i want to have a discussion about that. i encourage questions
afterwards, and i know i have got some fairly faces in the crowd and perhaps some not so fairly, but i look forward to that discussion. based on what you've read on tv, you have come in with a perception, a notion, perhaps which you've heard over the years may or may not be accurate. do is tope today to fill in that information gap and talk about what we do. let me ask you a question. if i ask you if you want to live in a country that maximizes peace and stability and well-being for all its citizens, i'm sure your answer would be yes. if i ask if you believe in integrity, respect, and tolerance, and that they are important qualities to have both as a person and as a nation, i'm pretty sure your answer would be yes. you what is the
best way for us to promote and preserve these qualities, my guess is the answers would start to vary. that is because there are remarkably different in competing views on how to achieve those goals. views about how to achieve those goals. one vision believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with minimal interference from government. another vision leaves most decision-making within reasonable limits to the individual. a much different vision believes the government must actively intervene. it is a vision that believes government usually knows better than the individual. 200 years ago, thomas jefferson predicted which of these two visions would have the upper hand. he said, "the national progress
of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. it is sad to say that prediction pretty much has come true. extreme oround extremely inaccurate to you? consider a few facts about our nation. occupational licensing requirements, which make obtaining certain jobs in honestly burdensome for low income job seekers. in several states, hair braiding , license requires more training for emt's in the same states. 372 dayse, it takes to become a licensed cosmetologist, while it only takes 33 days to become an em t. consider also the government
response to cooper, which is threatening the long-standing monopoly and struggle hold on pricing that municipal taxi systems have enjoyed for generations. consider our criminal justice system, which will send somebody to jail for life because he has been busted for possessing and selling small amounts of hot three times -- pot three times. another went off the hook for the same crime due to his standing in society. these are real-life consequences of the top down command and control system where politicians try to protect their supporters from competition. this mentality, this reluctance for government to allow people to succeed by helping others improve their charlesat feels-- fuels
koch and his company. i want to go down that path in a moment, but i'd like to stop for you to understand a little about the company i work for and what it does. we are in the energy business. that includes oil refining. we also invest in innovative heavily in biofuel like ethanol and biodiesel. consumer products including dixie cups and plates and paper towels and toilet that come from our georgia-pacific plants. company makes electronic components, including the components in your iphones. have you ever heard of lycra or stinain master? that's us. our polyester is provided to produce clothing, carpet, car parts, and other everyday products. we produce fertilizers. we handle minerals.
we develop pollution control devices. we are based in wichita, kansas. we employ 100,000 people globally and 60,000 in the united dates. -- states. we are in 60 countries. these are skilled manufacturing jobs. include engineering, i.t., and other jobs critical to operating a business. no matter what industry we find ourselves in, we strive to be among the best of the best in our competitive set. products torovide using theers while fewest resources possible. ranked koch the best us-based parent company for implementing pollution
prevention initiatives. we invested heavily in energy efficiency and plan to drive down consumption of fuel and power by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. that's not to mention the great work for companies have as they come together and earn over a thousand awards for safety, and excellence, community stewardship, innovation, and customer service since 2009. they are doing great things to impact the world for the better. example, we are focused on biological crop solutions to increase crop yield and reduce pollution or hazardous runoff. this will help feed the estimated 9 billion people that 2050 using earth by the same amount of land for farming today.
examples begin to illustrate that there is more to being a successful company than just a dollar signs. what makes coke industries different is how it is run. koch decided to look at business through a win-win mindset her. evelop hist ito d mindset in the 60's. in 21mpany was valued million and 19 621 and is valued million in 1961 and 140 billion in 2014. is this framework that has allowed us to do more than keep
pace with our dramatic change that has occurred over the last several decades. , energy prices have risen and fallen and repeated echols did global competition has intensified. the geopolitical map of the world has been redrawn. the volume of litigation has soared. technologies have transformed businesses. the pace of innovation has accelerated. market management has enabled it all whilet earning good profits. all because benefit they -- are good because they invovled.ll they create value for others. prophet created by market
manipulation and cheating in subsidies is the opposite. when you go to the supermarket, you have a choice of what randy weber tallied by -- of what paper towel to buy. it is a company producing a product to earn your business by providing the best option will using the fewest resources. these transactions are win-win. value is graded for the buyer and seller, creating good profit. what we see too often in washington is that politicians are reading the system to benefit -- rigging the system to many.t a few rather than indra saw firsthand what happens when government intervenes. it has been politicized. when government chooses to reward this particular solar
panel company with hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies, it distorted market prices. this resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost taxpayer money when the company ultimately failed. the problem is that politicians have created a culture, a culture that encourages businesses to seek out political favors. businesses should be developing products and services that feed on their own merits. this is corporate welfare, welfare for the rich. that is why we are speaking out about it what is outrageous about this relationship -- about it. what is outrageous about this relationship is that the tax credits are going to well-established corporations, like ge and boeing, who would do fine on their own. forceense does it make to taxpayers to provide huge companies with tens of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits? it really doesn't.
imposesernment tax regulations like this, it becomes harder for new competitors in the market. in the end, you are left with a system of corporate welfare that stifles innovation, undermines prosperity, and destroys opportunities for the disadvantaged. opposedwhy koch government subsidies to businesses. we take subsidies in our ethanol business to maintain our competitive environment. thempose and lobby against at every opportunity we can. we oppose this bad profits, because we believe people should when people value
consumers. the system creates corporate welfare for the rich you'd this corrupts the business community and simultaneously destroys opportunities for the disadvantaged. habsnment is enriching the at the expense of the have-nots. haves at the expense of the have-nots. it is the recognition of this mentality that spurred our interest in reforming the criminal justice system and eliminating barriers to low income people starting a business or even getting a job. let me talk about that. at one point, over the last several months, you might have gone, do i hear that right? when president obama or van jones praised koch. you heard that right. quotes charles
douglas when he says, "i will unite with anyone to do good." we have worked with the obama toinistration and the aclu reform the criminal justice system. if we want citizens to play a meaningful role in society, the lives of others, and ultimately succeed, we cannot lock them up and throw them -- and throw away the key and forget they exist. when they are released, we cannot treat them like second-class citizens. consider these statistics. we spend $80 billion a year on incarceration in the united eights. -- united states. that is three or four times what we spend on education per capita.
the federal prison population has grown 300% since 1980. ofcurrently imprisoned 25% the world's prison population, even though we are only 5% of the world population. we are the largest jailer in the world. approximately 35% of federal offenders are first-time nonviolent offenders. more than half of federal offenders are in prison for drug crimes. 13% of, who make around the united states population, account for 40% of inmates. to bring about a transformation on this issue, we must set aside august and -- partisan politics and collaborate on solutions. we partnered with the national association of criminal defense lawyers to bring about positive change. -- one ofe focuses our focuses was restoring rights
to youthful, nonviolent offenders. nonviolent offenders, such as those involved in drug use violations. x-offenders cannot get a job or education or housing, how can they lead a productive life in society? surprised whene half these people being released from prison are incarcerated again within three years? congress is mobilizing around this issue. the house passed a comprehensive criminal justice reform. we are cautiously optimistic the 2016 will see a bill signed into law. we cannot sit around and wait for government to act. they played an important role.
government needs to walk the walk and talk the talk. government -- the government took a move, choosing to ban the box. they will now wait until prospective employees are being interviewed or have tentative job offers before choosing to ask about criminal history. this give someone a better shot at employment if they are not rejected at the start of the process. it gives them a chance to explain what happened. we think this is the right move and encourage other employers to follow suit. we cannot stop at criminal justice reform alone. that is not the only thing that needs fixing if we will help the disadvantaged. just as important is helping people improve their lives by addressing how government is making it difficult to gain
employment or start a business. there are burdensome occupational licensing requirements. i mentioned the example of cosmetologists versus emts. the government is helping established businesses keep down up and comers. think about taxi commissions versus uber. those currently in business don't want these newcomers to undercut their profit margins. they team up with friends in government for special treatment by placing of seen fees and excessive training requirements on these individuals trying to work hard to make a living. havenments at every level prevented the creation of nearly 3 million jobs and lowered entrepreneurship rates, harming low income communities the most. focus on criminal justice reform, we are getting ready to address these issues in the coming. -- in the coming months.
-- to carve to our out a pathway on this reform. from all that you have heard, kochly there is more to and you may have thought. may be thinking, mission accomplished, you have done a good job. you are saying, everything you're saying is well and good, and i'm happy you're talking about using resources efficiently, taking care of the you'rement, i'm happy trying to help people get jobs and stay out of jail, but you're still trying to take over the country by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elections. it is a fair question. it is important one. i want to address it this morning. what most people don't know and i didn't know until i started koch's with koch is that foray into politics started in 2003 as part of dissatisfaction
with president george w. bush's policies. the out of control spending and government and the counterproductive wars. started withe have a gathering of like-minded individuals who were and are worried about the country, the trajectory of the country, and it was not a partisan gathering. it was about ideas. it is less about republicans versus democrats than it is about promoting policies that will help people improve their lives. on cbssaw charles koch speaking with anthony mason, you may remember him saying the democrats are taking us over the financial cliff and toward a two-tiered society, and republicans are doing it at 70 miles per hour.
he has nothing to do with maintaining republican party supremacy. more to do with electing individuals more aligned with policies that will help people improve their lives, whether r b publican or democrat or whatever. he describes himself as a classical liberal. outlets report that he considers himself a progressive because of the fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means. a classical liberal once a society that maximizes peace, stability, tolerance, and well-being for everyone. that requires equal treatment for everybody under the law. opensuires a system that opportunities for everyone, and does not inhibit innovation. it promotes a society and business environment in which people succeed by helping others improve their lives.
regarding spending, let me talk about that. the donor network which the text toe part of the spend $250 billion through super pac in 2016. depends on what the contributors expect to get. super pac money is referred to as dark because you don't have to disclose the donors. the 153 death threats last year alone, not all donors are willing to put their names out there. it is their right. iamyears ago, justice will brennan wrote that when it comes is part and politics,
of the exercise -- it is part of the exercise of free speech. -- demanded the disclosure of identity to support a cause. some may not like it and we are free to debate the pros and cons of such a system, but the supreme court has been steadfast in its affirmation of the role of money in politics, specifically the right to remain anonymous. kochst point, cja remains transparent in his spending. all of what he gives personally to his foundations and pacs is public.
most of what he gives goes to his foundation. multiple philanthropic endeavors throughout the country, including the united negro college fund and the salvation army. he funds the koch institute, others theo giving opportunity to learn the principles the transformed his life and allowed him to a cop was more than he ever dreamed possible. he supports ideas over politics. i don't say these things to make excuses. there is a lot of money in politics. there's money on both ends of the spectrum. the worst of it is the corporate welfare money to rippling the economy. it is corrupting the business community and destroying opportunities for the disadvantaged. we believe the only profit that is beneficial as that which results from creating value for others. not through coercive means, as
we have seen through government mandates, but through mutually beneficial transactions. let me close. ne need a principal-drive framework focused on creating freedom, opportunity, and well-being for everyone, especially the least fortunate. to unleashing a free society and making america everything it can and should be. lay ages can p and that science provide the intellectual foundation for change. give a choice to make here, do we want control and dependency to define our nation? woody rather have a culture of entitlement among the rich as
well as the poor, or a culture of accomplishment? we wantfident that if to expand opportunity for everyone, we must help people achieve their dreams rather than dictate how they should live their lives. wrote in his new book, for individuals to develop happiness it must be free to make their own choices and mistakes rather than be forced to accept choices made by others. thehe essence, this is difference between north korea and south korea, hong kong and mainland china, and east germany versus west germany in the past, and countless other examples. history has repeatedly shown that protecting individual rights and promoting economic freedom does more than create a higher standard of living. these societies enjoy cleaner environments, high literacy
rates, and less government and business corruption. that is why i believe a free, fair, and prosperous society is worth pursuing. i believe it is a future worth fighting for. it is up to you to decide if you want to do something about it. that is all that i have, and i am happy to take questions. [applause] >> what is the difference between the koch brothers and a george soros? >> in what way? koch brothers maligned, and george soros
triumphed in the media. what is the difference between the two of them? maybe you can speak to what george soros is seeking, but i'm curious -- about howre talking the each use money in politics i don't really believe there is much of a difference going on there. there is a lot of organizations on the left, the democracy alliance which has dozens of groups that support a progressive agenda and that is a lot of dark money. that has been going on for years and that is fine, that is their right to have a right to do that. george soros has a right to do that. it is interesting that when other organizations that don't ideology start doing that than some people take exception to that. you can't just have one standard for one side and one for the other. a democrat, but not
a progressive. some of us still exist. and, a lot of us know that the environmental movement is co .opted by a lot of marxists you're probably in the trenches, i wonder if you could give us some statistic -- specific examples of where that happens when you're producing energy but running against this coalition of marxism and environmentalism. [laughter] steve lombardo: i'm going to take a tact that the environmental movement in general has been a good thing for this country in some respects. people were kid, throwing trash out the window. that is gone now, people are respecting the environment and treating it as something that we need to take care of. koch industries we
want to make the best possible product making -- using the fewest resources. conservation is a huge part of the entire company across the globe and what we do. now, when you manufacture things , stuff goes up in the air. thate trying to reduce every year as much as possible. all the things we use every day require manufacturing. virtually everything. there are ways you can do it that is less harmful to the environment, that is what koch is trying to do. we produce pollution control devices that other companies are using -- we are very proud of our record there. this isn't about being against the environmental movement. some things we do believe go too far in the sense that it harms people. when you start harming people's lives, especially those most disadvantaged, then i'm not sure we're making some of the right
decisions. >> and a recent interview with the wichita eagle, charles koch claims that politicians are beholden to those that get them elected and that it is welfare for the wealthy. network has poured millions of dollars into our political system. steve lombardo: the last part of your question was? >> do they agree the candidates they back are the same way beholden to them? steve lombardo: that is a great question. i'm going to answer it the way charles recently answered that and that is beholden is the wrong word in that charles is frustrated right now, to be honest with you. a lot of the candidates that the network he is a part of, along have not doneors,
a lot of things they said they were going to do. frustrated, and we have not at this point in time supported any presidential candidate. koch is worry none of them will do what they say they are going to do. the people we supported in 2014, a lot of them have not lived up to the things i'm talking about in terms of fighting corporate welfare, supporting criminal justice reform, among other things. everyone who votes for someone, or contribute money to them, you are hoping that they will do what they said they were going to do. if you call that beholden, you can. i give five dollars to a candidate because i think that they said they were going to do something and i agree with that. i want them to do that, i am giving them five dollars.
or $500 million, or whatever it might be. expecting them to do the things they say they are going to do, and frankly a lot of them are not, most of them are not. koch, so since 1997, the brothers have burned close to $80 million into climate change denial groups, and climate change threatens everyone on this planet but predominantly poor communities of color which is enjoy suggesting koch cares deeply about. if they do, how does continued climate change denial protect their bottom line drive fairness? steve lombardo: um, thank you, good question. issue is a change complex one. charles said recently in his interviews that the climate is changing, that the data that has
been shown over the last hundred years is that the temperature 0.8 degreesed by centigrade and that carbon emission is up there is probably some correlation between the two will stop some of this is man-made, what concerns us and others is that the politicization of that is about some of the solutions being offered. you talk about the most is advantaged in society, some of the solutions being offered will harm the very people that we purport to want to help. especially if you look at the disadvantage throughout the globe and other third world countries where having energy to be able to power medical devices to keep people alive is a real issue in lots of parts of the world. is an important
issue, the environment is important to us, but the solutions that people talk about -- we need to think about the actual people. and whatever solutions you were talking about. on locally, television, i'm seeing advertisements from some group with an innocuous name about ethanol subsidies and the need to moderate or and the mandates. koch'ser what position on that is? steve lombardo: we oppose all ethanol subsidies. is a great product, and should stand on its own. and these subsidies sorts of things really disrupt the market. these products should stand on their own, if they are
economically viable if they provide value for people, they will work and they will thrive. any alternative out there we support all forms of energy. stand on their own, and they have to provide economic value and value to people in their everyday lives. we propose -- oppose subsidies. >> one difference between george h brothers is koc that the conservatives in this george have not defamed soros from the united states senate floor as harry reid has. question, i'mhe very impressed with the industries that the koch brothers run. i think one issue that you failed to address is the news media entertainment stranglehold in this country. i wonder why, with all that money, the koch brothers don't
by abc, cbs, or nbc? ask them. if i had want to choose, i would go at espn. [laughter] steve lombardo: listen, we could spend hours talking about media bias it he country. country. i'm much or that is the biggest problem we face in terms of being maligned on the floor the senate, that is senator reid's prerogative. -- he is protected by the u.s. constitution to do that. i think a lot of people in this country just wish he would try and help people improve their lives rather than going after u.s. citizens. >> my name is sheila, i just have a quick question about the
political involvement. while they have claimed they did not enter the political sphere until the bush administration, david koch did run for vice president on the libertarian ticket in 1980, and they spent hundreds of thousands on political contributions during each presidential cycle since the 1990's. i was wondering, why are they trying to hide their long involvement in politics? steve lombardo: that is a good question. i would argue with that these is that anyone is trying to hide their political involvement. like any company, koch industries was involved in politics through their contributions. president inr vice 1980 on the libertarian ticket. so, what i was referring to is the seminars that started by charles and david with a group in 2003. both of those facts are correct.
>> the network has made climate change denial the litmus test for supporting political candidates. pledge to onlyk support programmable justice prorm candidates? -- criminal justice candidates? steve lombardo: we support a candidate who was a different change.climate that makes that support a climate change denier, some hypothesis.the we support a lot of different candidates over the years and will continue to do that. there is somehink level of frustration with people getting things done. the support that we will do moving forward -- is a lot going
to depend on their positions on the issues that i've laid out , they have very little to do with their support of some of these other issues. >> we have time for one more. position on means testing for certain government benefits? steve lombardo: we don't have one right now. that is something we have talked about, it is clearly something that i think the candidates will start talking about. i hope it will get into that. this is aese issues, fun election cycle and i think people are entertained, i opened some point it starts to migrate towards important issues. we don't have a position right now. thank you very much, i appreciate it. [applause]
>> good afternoon welcome and they give you for joining us today on the topic of critical importance. i am president of the united states institute of peace with the critical moment to this serious conflict to threaten not of the regional political will security with the arrival of refugees in europe that there is 60 million people displaced by conflict and 12 million are syrian. and estimates suggest what quarter have been killed in the civil war today. one of the pressing tragedies of our time united states has been the leading donor of humanitarian assistance over the last five years by growing more
bloody and complex by the day the global community mr. jett they work together to provide desperately needed civilian production to achieve a meaningful and lasting pay -- peace with the community and the commitment we read never again turn a blind eye let that systematic violence of human suffering come forward so i am honored to welcome to the u.s. institute of peace they committed leader and a vocal advocate for diplomacy over his years of public service the senate chair and not united states secretary of state thomas secretary kerry knows better of most the value of american leadership in the importance of building partnerships to meet the
most pressing challenges tireless in his dedication to peace and security and i understand immediately following this meeting he will get on another plane to head overseas for another round to create peace is in syria. please join me to welcome secretary kerry to discuss the strategy of policy in syria and his vision for this conflict. [applause] >> they give very, very much a apologize to be a couple of minutes late and i am delighted to see our friends am pleased it is great
period three to be here want to thank for hosting this afternoon to fly long distances which is no less dangerous to walk across two-thirds street this institute is a spectacular plays to reach the pivotal age of 30 i say that as some of you may remember not to trust anybody over 30. but given that i am twice that age my message is don't believe everything your tot. [laughter] the truth is under the
leadership of nancy and build this institute is hitting its stride as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution. increasingly effective and a place where smart and energetic people come to help others and i am confident that will remain the case for many decades to come. congratulations and then i expect all of you to go back to work. [laughter] another reason i am to be here is stated boldly in the name of this institute of peace. across the street in the harry truman building there are thousands of men and women whose big about peace
and especially but it would mean to the millions of people who live without it including many who have never in their entire lives have actually known it. and as a veteran i personally believe it is as worthy of that -- of a pursuit the matter how hard it is to achieve the intent is guided by principle or realistic vision is always worthwhile. and i hope they got i did not bother to stop people from killing each other. so it should not be a
surprise that peace is the major theme this afternoon with my remarks. these are extremely complicated times end i a appreciate the sharia law summit our leaders will with an agenda that the united states of america is today engaged in more areas of the world with more partners in a time in history that is not exaggeration. along with the pacific rim we have negotiated a landmark trade pact to buy together 40% of a global economy based on environmental standards and
21st century rules of the road. working with local partners with access to appear in - - food security to insure that our success to slow the spread of hiv/aids is a stated reaching out to the people of cuba but also working hard with the special envoy to move closer to a solution and to decades of the rebel group in europe we are standing firm in support of trade to send a strong message of message of
strong message of reassurance to be upheld. we have seen the beginning of what promises to be the most dramatic program since the breakup of the soviet union. to destroy the of core of the plutonium reactor to the stockpile of enriched uranium. finally at the end of this month i will join the president revere determined to negotiate the naturally ambitious to curb the greenhouse gas emissions her gore earlier this week to the overseas crisis by food in a water shortages extreme
weather events in the movement of people away from various to go lager sustain life. to limit the damage to seize the economic benefits all from those of the transformed energy future. reply all the stops from the consequences of morsi says san more delays and refusals to acknowledge what is taking place that is unacceptable so it is a lot more a complicated.
there are more important subjects we could be discussing into the evening but today at the area of the world in one country that is a concern and that is syria. but humanitarian disaster that is unfolding with over in security and challenges and maturity of young people and their aspirations all of that is the major topic of discussion at the sharia law summit in the meetings that i participate in so i thought this might be a good time to bring you up to speed on the administration strategy in syria on decisions made on the actions that we are taking to build on in weeks and
months to come. syria as we know which is not just another country in fact, it is one of the first places that most of us learned about of damascus among the oldest continuously inhabited city is in the face of the earth as part of mesopotamia the cradle of civilization empires have risen and fallen and syria is a commercial crossroads. this is attributed to rich cultural mix the story of modern syria. to usher in the era of limited modernization ended
the year 2000 assad was succeeded by his son raising hopes that the new leader chose not to fulfill. from the sparks of the arab spurring begin to ignite not by religious differences by the lack of freedom and jobs that is all they win assad and responded to peaceful demonstrations to send in thugs to beat up people when they objected and took to the streets themselves every she replied with bullets having made peaceful change then assad made war inevitable.
this gave rise to 86 the gravest extremist rabbi our generation and the embodiment of evil and the results is four and a half years of nonstop or. one in 20 has been wounded or killed when and by as a refugee one at of two has been displaced the average life expectancy dropped by 20 years 80 percent of electricity has been knocked out plunging much of the country and the burden of the complex falls most heavily on the smallest shoulders. but the entire public school system in favor sudden they closed then there are children whose birth in
lebanon could not be registered because his parents were separated during the war he is neither syria nor lebanese and there are thousands like him. those of their growing up in camps many without education in overcrowded apartments without a country to call our own. make no mistake the longer it lasts the harder it is for the country to recover wounds that could never be true the close. since i have met by many of those doctors are risking their lives were treating the injured despite constant
attacks with threats of abuse soared bitter cold those that emerged with photographic evidence of what was inflected on thousands of victims and a few weeks ago with refugees who had survived the barrel bombs dropped from helicopters making their way to berlin in germany. from the beginning of this crisis that has ben discussed in public but has not been the subject of intense scrutiny. whenever questions one might have of the content should
be no doubt made to be for ending the crisis. that explains what united states supported the united states monitors white un ambassador samantha power for the humanitarian relief agencies and though as i became secretary of state and helping them in ways this is why we have worked hard to mitigate the incredible burden of the war displaced of their neighbors
are iran, lebanon excuse me iraq. in order to keep the violence from spreading with the macs that -- massive influx of refugees that has spread beyond their own region into the heart of europe. but to date and as was mentioned we have probably given and attributed more than 4.5 billion dollars of humanitarian relief and we're constantly resorting to other countries to open their watch because as another winter starts the need alloway's the supply. and then welcome to our shores of the united states
now win assad attacked his own people with these horrific weapons president obama threat of military strikes to back down to enable us to strike a deal of u.n. security council. but let me tell you something it is plenty good that that happens because you can only imagine the devastation the leaders if they couldn't get their hands on the arsenal of sophisticated chemical arms.
because of the list of crimes it is numbing. smugglers or kidnappers criminals tablature teachers and burn books to execute journalists to do their jobs and average citizens not pretty debate have said or done before who they are. and what they believe about religion and in iraq dash fighters are off raping women and girls to teach the abuse of under age nine muslim girls is not only acceptable but a form of prayer and expression.
en ben to commit homicides and suicides at the same time to pick up sledge hammers to destroy the 1800 your old roman arch ac is the director of antiquities in the public square to cut off his head to leave his body tied to a poll. he was 83 years old and was in charge of preserving the cultural heritage for more than 50 years. history doesn't matter and human dignity doesn't matter in the secret -- ct is alien to dash their leaders represent everything we fought against everything we
have tried to build up that is right and good in all of society we face a fight against medieval and modern fascism at the same time. let me be clear is that the fight to make on behalf of others. united states does not go and search of enemies. there is times they come in search of us we know that dash means what it says to attack america and attack americans and their interests. so the stakes could not be higher under obama was leadership to take -- and defeat dash not listed in
anything they remain deeply committed to broker a solution and we have said from the beginning is a multi-year effort but as i will describe and we are cleared up the road ahead. this civil war has dragged on more than four years but regrettably but the intractable nature is attributable to a number of factors beginning with the assad government.
to be dictatorial rule to choke off the political observation in the sectarian differences that could have worked themselves out bustard beneath the surface and then emerged so suddenly between their rising alarm once side and then might be the case by the involvement of regional actors especially has beloved intervened on the back half of assad and members that cross the international border to be involved in this by. we face an environment that bears little resemblance of those scenarios that make
them easy those that are not accustomed to working with each other but the truth is all those that assad and dash are part of the and then solve problem is directly attributable to the policy of actions that is why we have referred to assad as a magnet for terrorism. there are many that to suppose said enemy is our symbolic that drives thousands of syrians into the arms of dash and fear cause some serious groups to feel they had no other option that is in just symbolic but some biotic
each piece designed on the of our that explains the massive refugee crisis today. the relationship between assad and dash that the two extremes have targeted one another. their enemies far more in theory it neither has shown any interest to bring the killing to an and. neither the dictator nor the - - not the answer with an asset -- an acceptable alternative and to the advent president obama and has set three interrelated
goals to begin with dash the president made it clear the fed is states was committed to dismantle the terrorist organization and. to pick up the pace to move forward for a degrading and defeating dash more rapidly were completely and probably to intensify that efforts to bring an end to the civil war in syria. because of its stability by the serious crisis does not spend further beyond the borders. these measures are mutually reinforce civil. the more progress we make on one the will likely be are to succeed of the others. president obamacare has made
his clear view that it cannot be resolved and that remains the case but it is also clear that successful diplomacy depends on part to research leverage who is beating or has the upper hand. with the increasing evidence of iraq and syria that dash can be defeated or routed when faced with a combination of coalition airstrikes and effective partners on the ground. this coalition has only been together 14 months last summer it did not even exist. the call the issue has
already made a huge difference to save people's lives that evidence is there for everyone to see. from iraq and syria and the number is rising every day there are more than 40 just last night with another vital facility while preventing a terrorist assault on baghdad. we have driven dash from the critical border town predicting it would fall and how terrible that would be ended and fall because we stepped up and reinforced to provide that capacity and people could fight back. we have seen to creaked liberated to see the population about 100,000 people to rebuild their communities.
in today as we sit here allied forces is are the berated to cut off highway 47 that is the main artery from syria into iraq. including the deployment of thousands of american advisor to trade and assist iraqi security forces we have degraded their top leadership including the second in command and we continue to eliminate commanders and other personnel from the battlefield overall is unable to operate and to defy% of the territory controlled one year ago and readjust getting started me know more about the enemy and what has worked and what has not and what can work
for gore the president's direction and those lessons in mind we're stepping up the strategy in all aspects and its director supplying partners with armored bulldozers ended put it to break down the defense's around the key city of for body. as they speak they have a calibrated effort to retake the city. . . we are striving to put the
squeeze on the center of his operations. it we have at some of the key energy facilities. derive revenue and fuel. we have made them change the way it moves and operates. they get up each morning worried about what might come down from the sky. all of this and more. this is part of a strategy to this is coming from as many directions as possible. time, we know the struggle is not taking place in
a political vacuum. that is why we are working to promote a fully sovereign stable, self-reliant, inclusive iraq that has secured orders and is able to protect about all of its citizens. nothing it can also the fight against the terrorist more than a diplomatic process that begins to deescalate the conflict and give the syrian people real .hoice this could be something far better and long overdue, a true transition and was responsible syrians a rusty political spectrum would have a voice. elementwhy another core of our strategy in syria is diplomatic. , renewed political initiative or action oriented than any
previously intended to isolate terrorists and set syria on the path to peace. on the path to peace. this possibility was the focus of meetings in vienna at the end of last month. meetings, that for the first time, brought together all the key international interested parties to the very same party. table. guess what. it came out with the product. that session produced to communicate by every country attended and those countries that don't tend to agree on much, but they do agree that dash is evil and the war in syria must be brought to an acceptable and as soon as possible. more specifically the countries represented in vienna agreed to support syria's unity and independence and integrity and their pluralistic character. we agreed, all of us that dash
and other groups have to be defeated. we agreed, all of us that syria's state institutions should remain intact we don't have the implosion that we saw in iraq. we saw and all agreed, that the rights of all syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination have to be protected in whatever government comes out. we agreed, all of us that actions for humanitarian relief has to be assured throughout the country and that will be one of the topics we talk about on saturday. we agreed, all of us, to increase support for internally displaced persons and refugees and for the countries that post them. we agreed, all of us, that the un should convene members of the syrian government and the syrian opposition to develop a plan along the lines of the 2012 geneva communicate leading to a incredible, incredible, nonsectarian governance followed by a new constitution and by free and fair transparent,
accountable elections run under the supervision of the united nations with the highest standards of elections anywhere in the world. we agreed on that. all of those. we agreed to explore the possibility of a nationwide cease-fire. to be initiated in parallel with this renewed political process. obviously, such a cease-fire does not include dash. it is our effort to defeat dash and the efforts of our partners to defeat dash and we will continue until we prevail. it is precisely through this political process that we can, for the first time, if it works, marshall the support of the entire international community against a single common enemy. dash. i want to be clear. the syrian people will be the validator's of this whole affair. the un voice has met with representatives from more than 230 syrian groups.
we have also been in constant communication with syrian representatives. i have met with syrian opposition leaders myself. this is not about imposing anything on anyone. we are trying to come together as stakeholders to create a framework which can ignite the united nations negotiating process. the syrians will be the first to tell you that they need help from the international community to get there. what they especially need is a consensus about how to achieve a political transition that will free them from the stranglehold of extremists on one side and the stranglehold of the dictator on the other. that will allow them to shape their own destiny. i want to underscore that the leaders of the responsible opposition opposition are not focused on revenge for they have no desire to prolong the war. they understand the compromise will be required.
at the same time, it's simply not possible to go back to the situation that existed before the conflict began. who in the world truly believes that possible? not after month upon month of indiscriminate violence and torture and bloodshed. not after 40 years of dictatorship. asking the opposition to trust ashad or except his leadership is simply not a reasonable request. it is literally therefore a nonstarter. even if we wanted to, my friends, even if you made the worst deal with the devil as one says and said well that's what you have to do to try to make this process go forward, i have news for you, it will not stop. there are those invested in what has happened and what has been done to them who see ashad as
the critical component of the transition. that's why we are pushing so hard for a real transition. without a real transition the fighting will continue in the war will never end. from this point acknowledge we are still working through with russia the question of ashad in his role. it has not been settled and we acknowledge that. we believe through this organic process of syrians defining the future of syria, we believe we can find a road ahead. we can believe that neither peace nor the defeat of dash is possible with ashad in power. the foreign half years of the civil war did has made that very clear. even while divided on this issue, the united states and russia and other countries involved have decided,, wisely i think, not to let that disagreement prevent us from trying to build on the common ground that we have established. build a legitimate legitimate
process. our goal is to develop a timetable for action based on interim steps. the participation of a broad range of syrian parties including men and women and the kind of political transition that will empower against the extremes. i cannot say this afternoon that we are on the threshold of a comprehensive agreement, no. that remains a lot of work to be done. the walls of missed trust in syria within the region are thick and high. those walls will never be breached unless we make a concerted effort and a creative effort to surmount them. our meeting at the end of october showed that the agreed basis for action as much wider than many suppose. looking ahead it should be crystal clear that dash should never again be allowed to gain any control of the territory or
even control syria and equally clear that ashad lacks the ability to unite and wipe away crimes of war and governor another country or end the war. we must find an alternative. that logic is compelling and provides basic unified principle for our unit going forward. friday i will return and be in vienna. the assembly there will be from china, egypt, egypt, france, germany, iran, iraq, italy, jordan, turkey, the united kingdom and the united nations. it's in an strawberry group. with those extraordinary group. with those principles, our hope
and prayer is that we will be able to find a sensible way forward. america's message to each is that we all have a responsibility, not to dig in our heels but to take the next step forward so that the bleeding can stop in the building can begin. so that the habits of civilization can once again take hold in the region where civilization itself was born. there are moments in managing world affairs as all of you know, when the elements required to progress simply do not exist. a time in turbulence can generate new possibilities. we do not know for sure whether the right possibilities have yet come together in connection with syria. we do not know for certain whether the kind of political transition we seek in that country can be achieved. we do not know for certain how long it would take before we can say that dash has been defeated. but we do know for certain that
we have an obligation to ourselves, to friends throughout the region, and above all, to syria's next-generation to test those possibilities to the fullest. and even more, not to accept no for an answer. we have in an a responsibility to do everything we can for as long as we must to fulfill the high aspiration in the very name of this institution. we have a duty to peace. thank you very much. [applause]. please remain in your seat until the official party departs [applause].
>> on the next "washington journal," lawrence lessig on the lessons he learned on his run for the democratic nomination and his views on campaign finance. then blogger and columnist michelle malkin and john miano co-authors of the book "sold " discuss how some companies are abusing the guest worker program. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> my fellow americans, tonight, our country faces a grave danger. we are faced with the possibility that at midnight tonight, the steel industry will be shut down. i'm taking two actions tonight.
directing the secretary of commerce to take possession of the steel mills and to keep them operating. states952, the united was involved in a military conflict with korea and at home a dispute between the steel industry and its union had come to a head. >> the korean war was a hot war, and they needed steel for munitions, tanks, for jeeps, for all those things that you needed in the second world war as well. so, if the steel industry went on an and or three wide strike, that was going to be a problem. it was basic to the things that an army and navy and air force needs to fight the war. avoid disruption of production, crucial to the military, president truman seized control of the mills. as a result, the pending strike was called off and steel production continued however, the steel companies led by the youngstown sheet and tube
company in ohio took the lawsuit all the way to the supreme court. we'll examine how the court ruled in the case of youngstown sheet and tube company versus sawyer and the impact on presidential powers. joining our discussion, michael gerhardt, the professor at the university of north carolina law school and author of "the power of the president." well, author ofloww "the wartime president." wargressional checks on powers. coming up on the next landmark cases live monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span 3 and c-span radio. for a background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book available for$8.95 plus shipping and c-span.org/landmark cases.
captain fgrobert was awarded the medal of honor. maryland, the captain was injured in afghanistan during a suicide bomb attack. this is 20 minutes. ["hail to the chief" plays] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, along with the medal of honor recipient captain florent groberg. ♪