tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 2, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EDT
crash your fish fry and speak my mind about the candidate. i thank you all so much. know theye know, we will build this great nation again. it will build a stronger, safer, it will save our sovereignty. thank you so much for all of us united in that mission. [applause] god bless you, wisconsin, thank you very much. [applause] thank you guys. [applause] thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, governor sarah palin. [applause] >> the presidential campaign continues in wisconsin this weekend with many of the candidates making stops there ahead of tuesday's primary. donald trump is holding several
events today including a town hall in rothschild. fourll be there live at :00 p.m. eastern on c-span. bernie sanders is in milwaukee to give remarks with hillary clinton at the founders gala. it will include speeches from senators al franken and tammy baldwin. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ >> every election cycle, we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be reformed -- informed. vehicle for empowering people to make good choices. it really is like you're getting a seven course five-star meal of policy. boy do i sound like a nerd right there. for political way
junkies to track the government as it happens. most have a television on their desk, and c-span is on. i think it is a great way to stay informed. >> there are many c-span fans on the hill. when i go back today, they will say i saw you on c-span. >> like the history of grain elevators in pennsylvania. >> there was so much more that c-span does in terms of its programming to make sure that people outside the beltway know what is going on inside of it. >> i announced my candidacy -- >> i am officially running for president of the united states. [applause] >> i am a reporter that covers politics. for so many of my stories,
c-span has been part of my research. they provided me with quotes and insights about people. inthere are so many niches the political blogger sphere, and all of those get covered. does the u.s. have aimed in russia? >> it lets me do the thinking, and the decision-making. >> senate meetings, all that kind of stuff. >> the phone lines are open. never know what you're going to get. >> you're right i'm from down south. >> i and your mother. i disagree that all families are like ours. i don't know many families -- welcome to book tvs live coverage of the 32nd annual miami book fair. on the weekend, it becomes book tv.
>> it is a wonderful way of accessing the work of those who are writing really great books. every weekend, c-span3 becomes american history tv. you have to watch if you are a history junkie. >> whether you're talking but a anngressional hearing, or era in history. there is so much you can convey. capitol,r it is at the or the campaign trail, there capturing history as it happens. inside of the congregations on capitol hill and that you have a seat at the table. you can't find that anywhere else. >> i am a c-span fan. >> i am a c-span fan. >> yes, i'm a c-span fan. the power of c-span. access for everyone. ♪
>> more than 50 were leaders from washington, d.c. this week for nuclear security summit. was an effort that began in 2010 to highlight global cooperation. as hosted of this year summit, president obama held a closing news conference take questions from reporters. president obama: good morning, everybody. i want to thank washington, d.c. for hosting us. i will make one promise to the city, i will not hold another one of the summit in another six years.
i want to thank everyone who participated in these meetings. as an our previous summits we did not just coming to talk, but to act. deliver technical nature of nuclear security doesn't always make for flashy headlines. years, we've six made significant, meaningful progress in securing the world's nuclear material so that in of her the hands of terrorists. i want to take a few moments to step back and lay out exactly what we have accomplished. together, we've removed the world's most deadly materials nuclear facilities around the world. we have now secured all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium from one and 50 facilities. more than 3.8 tons which is more 150 enough to create
nuclear weapons. that is material never fall into the hands of terrorists. taiwan,ns, and countries as diverse as argentina and libya, and turkey. have no written themselves entirely. want to point out again, that successfully moving all of ukraine's image to uranium meant was it difficult situation now not made even more dangerous by the presence of these materials. as of today, south america, an entire continent is free of these materials. center europe will be free of them as well. workdonesia complete its this year, so will all of southeast asia. in other words, as terrorists and criminal gangs and arms merchants look around for deadly
device,nts for nuclear vast regions of the world are now off-limits. that is a remarkable achievement. they made important progress in the united states as well. we improved nuclear security and training. we've consolidated nuclear materials at fewer facilities, eliminated 130 tons of our surplus highly enriched uranium, enough for 5500 nuclear weapons. working with russia we are on track to eliminate enough russian highly enriched uranium for about 20,000 nuclear weapons, which we are converting to electricity here in the united states. more specifically, as result of these summits, every single one of the more than 50 nations
represented here at taking concrete steps to enhance security at your nuclear facilities and storage sites, and includes improved physical security, stronger regulations, abiding by international guidelines, greater transparency, and that includes international peer reviews. 15 new centers have been created around the world to prevent nuclear security technology to share best practices. today we agree to keep strengthening our defenses against cyber attacks. we bolstered international efforts to disrupt nuclear smuggling, and the initiative has grown to more than 100 nations, including exercises to improve our ability to interdict shipments. the united states and are countries have installed equipment at more than 300 international border crossings, airports, and ports, and we are developing new mobile detection systems as well. as i noted this morning, we are strengthened treaties and international partnerships that are the foundation for so many of our efforts. we have made significant progress, and everyone involved in this room, especially those
who have worked on this for years, take pride in our achievements. as i said earlier, our work is by no means finished. there's still a great deal of nuclear material around the world needs to be secured. global stocks of plutonium are growing, nuclear arsenals are expanding in some countries, with more small tactical nuclear weapons, which could be at greater risk of theft. and as a consequence, one of the central goals of this summit was, how do we build on the work that has been done so we have an international architecture that can continue the efforts even though this is the last formal leaders summit? even as this is the last of those leader-level summits, today we agreed to maintain a strong architecture, including through the united nations, the international atomic energy agency, and interpol to carry on
this work and provide the support that is needed to continue this mission. we are creating a new nuclear security contact group, senior-level experts from more than 30 of our countries, who will meet regularly to preserve the network of corporation, to institutionalize this work, and keep driving this progress for years to come. at our session on isil, there was agreement that defeating terrorist groups like isil requires more information sharing. everybody understands the urgency in the wake of what has happened in brussels and turkey, pakistan, and so many other countries around the world. as a consequence, our director of national intelligence, jim clapper, is continuing to engage with leaders from an number of our european partners on deepening cooperation, and today i invited all the nations represent it at the summit to join a broader discussion among
our intelligence and security services how we can improve among all nations to prevent all manner of attacks, especially those that might involve weapons of mass destruction. in closing, i want to say that preventing nuclear terrorism is one part of a broader agenda that i outlined of years ago in prague, stopping a world of nuclear weapons. and in recent days there has been no shortage of analysis on whether we have achieved our vision, and i am the first to acknowledge the great deal of work that remains, on negotiating for the reduction with russian to dealing with north korea's nuclear program. as i indicated, realizing our vision will not happen quickly, perhaps will not happen in my lifetime. but we have begun. united states and russian nuclear arsenals are on track to be the lowest that they have been in six decades.
i have reduced the number of nuclear weapons in our nuclear security strategy. in a historic deal, we have prevented the spread of nuclear weapons to iran. civil nuclear cooperation is being encouraged. we will keep pushing forward wherever we can, as i hope future administrations do, to bring us closer to the day when these nuclear dangers no longer hang over the heads of our children and grandchildren. with that, let me take a few questions, and i will start with roberta from reuters. >> thank you. i want to ask about iran, and three weeks ago the supreme leader complained his country has not been getting actual business deals since the nuclear agreement. and non-u.s. companies are
saying it is hard or impossible to do much business with iran without at some point accessing the u.s. financial system to do u.s.-dollar-denominated transactions. are you considering allowing such transactions, and if so, is that not a betrayal of your assurances that most u.s. stations would stay in place? president obama: that is not the course we are on. let me say broadly that so long as iran is carrying out its end of the bargain, we think it is important for the world community to carry out our end of the bargain. they had in fact, based on the presentations that were made by the iaea this morning to the p5 plus 1, had in fact followed the steps that -- part of the challenges that they face is
that companies have not been doing business there for a long time, and they need to get comfortable with the prospects of this deal holding. one of the things that secretary lew and his counterpart within the p5 plus 1 and elsewhere are going to be doing is providing clarity to businesses about what transactions are in fact allow, and it is going to take time over the next several months for companies and their legal department to feel confident that impact there may not be risks of liability if they do business with iran. and so some of the concerns that iran has expressed we are going to work with them to address. it is not necessary that we take the approach of them going through dollar-denominated transactions. it is possible for them to work through european financial institutions as well.
that has happened. and i always said i cannot promise that iran would take advantage of this opportunity in this window to reenter the international community. iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement. but the spirit of the agreement involves iran also sending signals to the world community of businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative action that might scare business off. when they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of israel, that makes businesses nervous. there is some geopolitical risk that is heightened when they see that taking place. if iran continues to ship missiles to hezbollah, that get businesses nervous. and so part of what i hope happens is that we have a responsibility to provide clarity about the rules that govern so that iran can in fact benefit the iranian people, can benefit from the improved economic situation. but iran has understand what every you interrupt understands,
ages businesses want to go where they feel safe, where they do not see massive controversy, where they can be confident that transactions are going to operate normally, and that is an adjustment that iran is going to have to make as well. and frankly, within iran, i suspect there are different views, in the same way to hardliners here in united who even after we have certified this deal is working, even after our intelligence teams, israeli intelligence teams say this has been a game changer, are opposed to this deal on principle. there are hardliners inside iran who do not want to see iran open itself up to the broader world community. and are doing things to potentially undermined the deal. and so those forces that seek
the benefits of the deal, not just in their own terms, but more broadly, we want to make sure over time they are in the position to realize those benefits. david? >> thank you, mr. president. as you mentioned, you finished a working session with 50 world leaders about combating terrorism. i wanted to ask you about one of the strategies your administrations is using in that effort. in the past several weeks, your administration has killed well over 200 people in airstrikes in somalia, libya, and yemen, according to the department of defense. how can you know that all people killed pose an imminent threat to the united states, and why is the united states now kill ing scores of people at a time rather than eliminating individuals in very targeted strikes? thank you.
president obama: we have constructed a fairly rigid and vigorous set of criteria for us evaluating the intelligence that we receive about isil, where it might be operating. these involve a whole range of agencies consulting extensively, and are then checked, double checked, triple checked before kinetic actions are taken. for the most part, actions are taken against high-value targets in the countries you described, outside the theater of iraq in syria. in some cases, what we are seeing our camps that after long
times of monitoring it becomes clear that are involved in directing plots that could do the united states harm, for supporting isil activities for al qaeda activities elsewhere in the world. so if after a long period of observation we are seeing that in fact explosive materials are being loaded onto trucks and individuals are engaging in training in small arms and there are some of those individuals who are identified as couriers for isil or al qaeda, then based on this evaluations a strike would be taken. but what we have been very cautious about is making sure that we are not taking strikes
in situations where, for example, we think there is the presence of women or children or if it is in a normally populated area. and recently, we laid out the criteria by which we are making these decisions. we declassified many elements of this. we are going to be putting forward and trying to institutionalize on a regular basis how we make these evaluations and these analyses. in terms of the broader debate that is taking place, david, i think there has been in the past legitimate criticism that the architecture, the legal architecture around the use of drone strikes or other kinetic strength was not as precise as it should have been, and there is no doubt that civilians were killed that should not have been.
i think that over the last several years we have worked very hard to avoid and prevent those kinds of tragedies from taking place. in situations of war, we have to take responsibility when we are not acting appropriately, or where we have just made mistakes, even with the best of intentions, and that is what we are going to continue to try to do. and what i can say with great confidence is that our operating procedures are as rigorous as they have ever been and that there is a constant evaluation of precisely what we do. >> thank you, mr. president. you spent seven years now working on nonproliferation issues, and you said in your
remarks that you hope that future administrations do the same. this week one of the republican frontrunners to replace you said that perhaps south korea and japan should have nuclear weapons and would not rule out nuclear weapons in europe. what message does it send when a major party candidate is articulating such a reversal in u.s. foreign policy? and also, who did you vote for in the democratic primary? [laughter] president obama: first of all, it is a secret ballot, isn't it? no, i am not going to tell you now. the statements you mentioned -- what do they tell us? they tell us the person who made the statement does not know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the korean peninsula or the world in general.
it came up on the sidelines. i have said before that people pay attention to american elections. what we do is really important to the rest of the world. and even in those countries that are used to a carnival atmosphere in their own politics want sobriety and clarity when it comes to u.s. elections because they understand the president of the united states needs to know what is going on around the world and has to put in place the kinds of policies that lead not only to our security and prosperity, but will have an impact on everybody else's security and prosperity.
our alliance with japan and the republic of korea is one of foundations, one of the cornerstones of our presence in the asia-pacific region. it has underwritten the peace and prosperity of that region. it has been an enormous boon to american commerce and american influence, and it has prevented the possibilities of a nuclear escalation and conflict between countries that in the past and throughout history have been engaged in hugely destructive conflict and controversies. so you do not mess with that. it is an investment that rests
on the sacrifices that our men and women made back in world war ii, when they were fighting throughout the pacific. it is because of their sacrifices and the wisdom that american foreign-policy makers showed after world ii, we have been able to avoid catastrophe in those regions. we do not want someone in the oval office who does not recognize how important that is. >> thank you, mr. president. yesterday, you met with president erdogan of turkey. do you consider him an authoritarian? president obama: turkey is a nato ally and an extraordinary important partner in our fight against isil.
it is a country with we have a long and strategic relationship, and the president is someone who i have dealt with since i came into office. in a whole range of areas, we have had a productive partnership. what is also true, and i have expressed this to him directly, so it's no secret that there are some trends within turkey that i have been troubled with. i am a strong believer in freedom of the press. i am a strong believer in freedom of religion. i am a strong believer in rule of law and democracy. there is no doubt that president erdogan has repeatedly been elected through a democratic
process. but i think the approach they have been taking toward the press is one that could lead turkey down a path that would be very troubling. we are going to continue to advise them -- and i have said to president erdogan -- remind him that he came into office with a promise of democracy, and turkey has historically been a country in which deep islamic faith has lived side-by-side with modernity and increasing openness, and that is the legacy which he should pursue, rather than a strategy which involves repression of information and shutting down democratic debate.
having said that, i want to emphasize the degree to which their cooperation has been as is true with a lot of our friends and partners, we work with them, we cooperate with them, we are appreciative of their efforts, and there will be some differences. where there are differences, we will say so, and that is what i have tried to do here. i will take one last question. this young lady right there. >> thank you, president. president obama: where are you from, by the way? >> i am from azerbaijan.
how can azerbaijan support in this nuclear security issue? president obama: azerbaijan, like many countries that participated, has already taken a number of steps. each country has put forward a national action plan. some countries had stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that they agreed to get rid of. other countries had civilian nuclear facilities but not necessarily the best security practices, so they have adopted better security practices. there are countries that could potentially be transit points for the smuggling of nuclear materials, so they have worked with us on border controls and detection. because of azerbaijan's location, it is a critical partner in this process. i should point out, by the way, that although the focus of these
summits has been on securing nuclear materials and making sure they do not all into the hands of terrorists, the relationships, the information sharing, the stitching together of domestic law enforcement, international law enforcement, intelligence, military agencies, both within countries and between countries -- this set of relationships internationally will be useful not just for nuclear material, but it is useful in preventing terrorism generally. it is useful in identifying threats of chemical weapons or biological weapons.
one of the clear messages coming out of this summit and our experiences over the last seven years is an increasing awareness that some of the most important threats we face are transnational threats, so we are slowly developing a web of relationships around the world that allow us to match and keep up with the transnational organizations that all too often are involved in terrorist activity, criminal activity, human trafficking -- a whole range of issues that can ultimately do our citizens harm. seeing the strengthening of these institutions i think will be one of the most important legacies of this entire process. since you have your hand up, i will call on you one last question.
>> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask a question about nuclear policy. when you pushed to rid the world of nuclear material and fissile material, the u.s. nuclear history has worked to improve miniaturization of warheads. while it has not developed new classes of warheads, it has improved the technology, which has prompted some in china and russia to say that they need to keep up. are you concerned the technological advances in the united states have had the effect of undermining some of the progress you have made on the prevention side? president obama: i think that is a legitimate question, and i am concerned. here is the balance we have had to strike -- we have a nuclear stockpile that we have to make sure is safe and reliable. after the treaty we entered into with russia, we have brought down significantly the number of weapons that are active, but we also have to make sure that they are up to date, that their command and control systems that might have been developed a
while ago are up to snuff, given all the technology that has changed since that time, and we have to make sure that our deterrence continues to work. even as we brought down the number of weapons that we have, i have wanted to make sure that what we do retain functions, that it is not subject to a cyber intrusion, that there is sufficient confidence in the system that we do not create a stabilizing activity. -- we do not create the
stabilizing activity -- we do not create destabilizing activity. after we completed the treaty, our team approach the russians in terms of looking at a next phase for arms reductions. because mr. putin came into power or returned to his office as president because of a vision he has been pursuing of emphasizing military might over development inside of russia and diversifying the economy, we have not seen the kind of progress i would have hoped for with russia. the good news is that the possibilities of progress remain. we are abiding by the treaty.
we are seeing implementation, and although we are not likely to see further reductions during my presidency, my hope is that we have built the mechanisms and systems of verification and so forth that will allow us to continue to reduce them in the future. we do have to guard against in the interim ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race. in our modernization plan, i have tried to strike the proper balance, making sure that the triad and our systems work properly, that they are effective, but also to make sure we are leaving the door open to
further reductions in the future. but one of the challenges we will have here is that it is very difficult to see huge reductions in our nuclear arsenal unless the united states and russia, as the two largest possessors of nuclear weapons, are prepared to lead the way. the other area where i think we would need to see progress is pakistan and india, that subcontinent, making sure that as they develop military doctrines, that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction. we have to take a look at the korean peninsula because north korea is in a whole different category. it poses the most immediate set of concerns for all of us, one
that we are working internationally to focus on, and that's one of the reasons why we had the trilateral meeting with japan and korea. thank you very much, everybody. have a good weekend. >> on the next washington journal, they discuss the latest of elements in a 2016 presidential race. with thees worn poynter institute. he will talk about media coverage of this election cycle. and a look at the latest jobs report for the much of -- month of march with kate davidson. we will also take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.
>> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. today at 7:15 eastern, george washington university professor kaplan ross discusses her book lessons and censorship, which examines free-speech issues for college students. 10:00 on afterward, former u.s. civil rights commission chair mary branson -- francis examines illegal voting practices in the united states in her book five dollars and a pork chop sandwich. book buying and the corruption of democracy. she is interviewed by spencer overton, president of the joint center of political and economic studies. >> the donor class through the people in office and running for office, it is the same people over and over, the state legislatures, the local things, they families and so on, they are the ones who are corrupt. corruptinge ones democracy. the other people are not getting the benefits of it because they
are not acting collectively to counteract it. they haven't found a way to counteract it in all of these years. >> on sunday in-depth live with author and publisher of forbes magazine. he will join us to talk about his life and latest book, reviving america, in which he argues for repealing the nation's health care law, replacing the tax code, and reforming the fed. other recent titles include money, freedom manifesto, how capitalism will save us, and power, ambition, glory. join in the conversation. we will take your phone calls, to its, and e-mails from them to three clock p.m. eastern. at 7:45, join book tv as we take a tour of the forger shakespeare library and washington, d.c., home to the world's largest shakespeare collection. go to book tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> the supreme court heard oral argument this week in a case that puts property rights against federal regulation.
the disputes over a proposed people mining a operation and minnesota, where a company is fighting the u.s. court award -- of engineers for deciding the property in question intends wetlands that fall under the clean water act. the question before the court is whether the decision can be challenged immediately or must be -- must wait until a permit which could take years. this oral argument is an hour. >> we hear an argument of this morning in case 15 to 90, united states army corps of engineers versus hawkes company. >> may it please the court, a jurisdictional determination issued by the army chorus engineers -- it does not order any person to do or refrain from doing anything and does not alter anyone's legal rights. expressly the core opinion about whether a particular tract
contains waters protected by the clean water act. that stated opinion may affect the recipients assessment of the options available to it, but it is not affect the actual legal status of those options. this court's precedents make clear of that. the practical effects on which respondents rely are not a sufficient ground for treating agency communication as final agency action. the respondents primarily emphasized the practical impact that the courts jurisdictional determination would have upon themselves, the recipients in the intended audience. they say the jurisdictional determination and indicating the court believes the waters of the united states will force them to choose among three unattractive options. one would be seeking a permit which could be an expensive process and wouldn't be by any means certain to succeed. these are -- the second would be discharging it onto the property chances on aeir
future enforcement action. the third will be playing it safe. the problem with respondent's argument is that choice would have existed before the jurisdictional determination was issued. if theuld have existed court never adopted the practice of issuing jurisdictional determination based on requests. it is simply a choice posed by the clean water act. it was a provision of law saying that i jurisdictional determination by the core or apa is binding on federal government in future litigation, would that be reviewable? if the statute said that, we would have a different case. in that case, we have something much closer to bennett versus sphere. in bennett versus fear, the court was dealing with a biological opinion issued by one federal agency, the fish and wildlife service, to another federal agency. it included an incidental statement.
the terms and conditions of the incidental statement affected the legal options that were available to the bureau of reclamation. >> it would be a different case. are you able to say whether that would be review -- reviewable under the epa? >> if the courts jurisdictional determination were legally binding upon the epa, if it foreclose the possibility of an enforcement -- of nepa enforcement action inconsistent with the terms of the jurisdictional the storm -- determination, we think they would be jurisdictional he reviewable. it is important to point out how to remove that is from the actual statue. >> let me ask about how far removed it is. there is no such statute. that is true. there is a memorandum of understanding between the army and the epa. , "case specific determinations which includes jurisdictional determinations
made specific to the terms of this memorandum of understanding may be binding on the government and represent the government's position in any subsequent federal action or litigation regarding the case. argument the that because this is an a memorandum of understanding as opposed to a statute or regulation, the situation is different and that is insufficient to make jurisdictional determination reviewable? be one argument. the other argument, and i think we have made this argument. memorandum ofr understanding was dealing with what is referred to a special case determinations. there are situations occasionally are rising where he agencies receive at the outset that there could be dicey questions, there could be questions of coverage on which the court and epa may disagree. i'm sorry, i don't think that's right. i'm looking at the memorandum, as well. it says section two -- sorry,
it describes nonspecial cases. it says for those projects not including a special case, the de, the eject engineer -- the district engineer, the army corps, not the pa, should make final communications and communicate those without a requirement for prior consultation with epa. while it talks about the division of authority between , it certainly says something about nonspecial cases. section two is titled. >> we understand the language about the ultimate determination being binding on the government in subsequent litigation as referring to special case determinations. >> i don't see how you can do that. it says all final determinations must be in writing and signed by either the da, either the army corps person, or the regional administrator, the epa person.
it says that those will be binding on the government and represent the government's position in any subsequent federal action or litigation concerning that final determination. it is referring to those that -- it is referring to all final determinations. either the army corps of engineers or apa. -- epa. malcolm: we are looking at the 1989 memorandum? the one you cite in footnote three of the reply brief. where you say that it does not address jurisdictional determinations. i think we would still think of a final determinations as referring to a special case determination. even if the memorandum -- just to pause there, how can you do that when this is all final determinations signed either by the district engineer who does not have authority over special cases or the regional administrator?
how can you read that as applying only to the special case determinations? malcolm: the final determinations of the d.o.a. made pursuant to the mla referring specifically to special case determinations. -- m.o.a. determines what a special case and what is not. i don't see how you can say it talks only about special cases. >> even if the memorandum is read that way, if it is read that way, i don't think it reflects current government policy. it doesn't reflect the current understanding. >> give me an example of a case where the government has gone , perhaps ine changed circumstance, who has had a negative in hand. has pre-memorandum post memorandum where you have
actually taken the army courts of determination and said we are going to go after this person anyway? hasks i don't know that it ever happened. >> the fact that you are reserving your power is enough even know by this memo and practice, you have never done it? withinnk that is not then its second prong? malcolm: it is not in the same way that franklin versus massachusetts, the practice of the president was always to transmit the figures and do it in accordance with the figures that were prepared by the secretary of commerce. the court said what mattered was there was no legally binding obligation on the president to do that. i would also say that independent of the possibility of an epa enforcement action, there is a more realistic possibility of a private citizenship. the fact that the corps
concludes jurisdictional waters are not present when include a tried onuit from being the premise. >> the question is -- which i think his final with respect to the court's determination, not with respect to whether someone else may be liable to bring a suit. is, iney are suggesting practice, and what i was suggesting an law is is this final with respect to the corps? malcolm: even with respect to it is still subject to examination of someone presents new information. if in the course of a permitting process, the applicant asks the corps to reconsider it stirred his action -- its jurisdiction. it will not re-examine it. -- what to me what your you are arguing as there are exceptions to what otherwise is all,area malcolm: first of
they jurisdictional determination we are talking about here, the one being challenged, was one that concluded that jurisdictional waters were present. it is clear that that sort of jurisdictional determination has no binding effect on anyone. the landowner is still legally free to disagree. >> a great practical risk. the court comes in and says these are jurisdictional robert -- waters and you say you can still dump and do everything you want and take your chances. there will be different ruling later on down the road. malcolm: i agree it is a legally available alternative. a practically difficult one. the other alternative property owners have is to seek a permit to discharge lawfully. the permitting process is the mechanism that congress designed to allow people to get an advanced ruling on the legality of their discharges.
landowner who thinks i shouldn't be under the clean water act at all, and now have to go through this whole process , it is going to take years and cost me a lot of money. malcolm: our legal system conference the type of problem and trade-off in a lot of different contests. for example, that was actively argument standard oil made in ftc versus standard oil. they had commenced an administrative proceeding in which standard oil was charged for violating the law. the leap of phrase was reason to believe. there was a statutory threshold that the ftc had to surmount before administrative proceedings could be initiated. was ird oil's complaint should be able to challenge the initiation of the proceedings because it will lead to great expense to defend against them. it one puma reputation. >> sometimes it does.
i joined bennet. assume that nothing in bennet, or i would've assented that it was intended to overall what i think is the great case on the matter. they explain completely and thoroughly what this court has done and frozen food express. in store, and did any point you are now making, what he says specifically is the review,r is right for even though it would have no effect until later. someone decided to bring a particular action. policy determination is right, even though it would not issue a television license. that is what the policy said.
even though no specific application was before the court. it didn't take effect until later. the same thing was true precisely of the order in abbott labs itself. it was a statement of interpreting what, the commission would do? nothing was going to happen. nothing happened. and less, later on, somebody decided to violate it. much like this. even if they violated it, nothing would happen. unless the commission decided to prosecute. as justice ginsburg said, once this is in effect. ok? now, what happens? the person who is subject to it has to take certain steps because of the law. spend $150,000 to try to get an nothingn and fill or do , violate it, and possibly go to
prison. those sound like important legal consequences that flow from an in respect to the agency, is final, because it has nothing to do about that interpretation. and is perfectly suited for review of the courts. we have harm flowing from a change in legal relations. we have an agency that has nothing left to do on this particular matter. we have a court that is perfectly suited to review it. abbott say it flows from labs. what is your response to that? malcolm: with respect to abbott labs specifically, abbott labs dealt with a regulation that essentially required on each instance where the trade name of a drug appeared, including on the labeling, the generic name of the drug had to appear, as
well. the regulation, as rules typically do, was phrased as a directive. it said manufacturers shall do this. it was a legal command. oil, the court said in various contexts, we have held that regulations are immediately reviewable as final agency action although the court engages in a separate rightness discussion. the second thing about bennet i said -- i would say is the bennet court was careful not to rest his decision on the practical impact that the order would have on the recipient. it rested its decision on the fact that the biological opinion constrained the legal obligation options available to the bureau of reclamation because only by those terms and conditions could the bureau of reclamation get the immunity from endangered species liability that it wanted. the third thing i would say, and to return to my prior point
about ftc versus standard oil, it happens a lot in the law that we are confronted with a situation like this. where a particular government decision is made, be it an agency order, a district court order that denies a motion to subjectfor lack of matter jurisdiction, or failure to state a claim on a merits, and a losing party, the person who disagrees with the order, says i should be able to get immediate review of this because if i don't get immediate review, then even if i'm vindicated at the end of the day, i will be put to substantial burden and expense in the meantime. -- don't resist this. assuming we disagree with you, that this should be appealable, what is the narrowest way to write this with the government? ruledm: if the court
against us on the ground that it court tod the epa and have entered into a binding agreement such that the epa would be foreclosed from taking action based on its disagreement with the court's jurisdictional determination, i think if that was the opinion, it would be one that if the agencies wanted to fix it, they easily could simply by issuing a new m.o.a. .'s effect.the j.d >> one of the reasons i find this case difficult is because all over the federal government, there are compliance office and's -- offices of various kinds whose function is to give advice to people. often, that advice comes with very specific recommendations. it says we will not take enforcement action if -- or we do not consider it a
violation of law on the following facts. what i want to know is your view of how this program impairs -- compares to various other kinds of programs like this. tax opinions letters, fcc opinion letters, ftc, or whatever. how this program compares to those, and where you could draw a sensible line. mostly, we want government agencies to do these things. we think this helps people, to actually know what the government thinks about particular factual situations. how do we draw lines in this area in your view? part of the difficulty i have with your question is -- i think if you were drawing lines, the jurisdictional determination at issue here would be fairly far removed from anything that ought to be traditionally reviewable. in many of the instances, the informal advice that agencies
are giving, it is specifically advice about the perceived legality or a legality of specific contemplative private conduct. someone may come to the agency and say i am thinking about doing x, without the legal or illegal? the agency might say we think that might be one or the other. the likelihood that an agency would say to someone that is legal and subsequently pursue enforcement action is -- >> underlying her question is the clean water act is unique in both being quite vague in his --ch, -- in its reagan reach, arguably unconstitutionally vague, and harsh in the criminal and civil sanctions it put into practice. what is the closest analogous statute? that gives the effective party so little guidance at the front end?
malcolm: with respect to the vast majority of sites in this country, it is readily apparent if the clean water act applies. it is somewhat removed from the fact of this case. it happens all the time that i construction sites at this country, industrial parties will dig up dirt and deposit it somewhere else and they are doing something that would be illegal if it occurred in waters of the united states, but no one things there is a problem because in the vast bulk of its locations, there really isn't a quandary. if you imagine a statute that said before you can do anything like that, you have to come to the court and get advanced assurance that these are not waters of the united states, it would be x eventually more burdensome. i take your point that there is a significant range of tracks where the application of the act is authentically ambiguous. the thing i would say about that is congress has designed the permitting process. there are other statutes in
which regulated parties have no statutory mechanism for getting it advanced -- getting an advanced ruling as to the legality of their conduct. they have to either do it and take their chances, or perhaps seek informal advice from the agency. >> let's say in the case were there hasn't been a standalone jurisdictional determination and the landowner applies for a permit. the first part of the permitting process as i understand it would be a jurisdictional determination, is that right? malcolm: that is correct. >> at the end of that, the landowner get traditional review -- judicial review if the determination is they are subject to the clean water act? or do they have to go forward in your view with all the rest of the permitting process before there is a possibility of administrative appeal and judicial review? malcolm: they would still have to go through the rest of the permitting process. part of the point of that is it may be that during the rest of the permitting process, the landowner will have no prospect
except perhaps an administrative appeal of persuading the court to re-examine its jurisdictional determination. >> the permitting process is a legal consequence under the second prong of bennett. malcolm: it is not a legal consequence because the landowner always has the legal option of discharging without a permit if it feels -- >> he goes to jail. in your brief, and i think the point race -- of course it is a good idea to give people advice. abbott labs takes care of that. one of the three important features of abbott labs is you look at it from the point of view of the agency, and you say how formal is it, what was there left to be done? in this case, we have a whole set of the cfr which is devoted to this. it's called jurisdictional determination from an
instructional guide book. the army corps of engineers. once they make a determination, it is called the agency's official view. they remains in effect for five years in less conditions change. you and your brief say that the issuance of an approved jurisdictional determination marks the commendation of the distinct process by which the and forms arps landowner whether they believe it is present. that doesn't summit someone giving formal advice. the appeals process sounds like a formal system of answering a question. which question is are these lands wetlands federal or not? if you had informal advice, you would come to a different result. i just a suggested -- i have just suggested it isn't at all informal. it is a five-year formal definite procedurally guided cfr determination. malcolm: i would agree that the
process is much more formal and elaborate than the process which would usually culminate in the kind of advice letters that justice kegan is talking about. >> i don't think the formality of the process has much to do with the basis on the -- the practical basis on which respondents want to get into court. that is, if this had been a formal -- less formal document, but had still manifests the view that jurisdictional waters were present, i think respondents would say they would be exactly the same practical pressure. >> the pressure is both. the concern on the other side, beyond the epa, is this is a vast federal government. this vast federal government can operate -- can issue many, many formal determinations on aspects of the statute. if people are -- people are required to follow those without penalty of going
to jail, if they don't just follow it, or paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, what happens to judicial review? that, i think, is also a public policy question. malcolm: i agree is a public policy question. as i was saying was standard oil, and the same principle applies to our legal system's general resistance to interlocutory repeals during -- in the judicial system, it happens all the time that a motion to dismiss is denied. a party who things the complaint are to be dismissed could say to an appellate court, i will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating this case to its conclusion before i can there is a good reason why it should go up immediately. there is nothing like
1290 two b. there is the permitting process. there is an alternative process. >> the jurisdictional -- first, explain -- under the clean water act, it is done this way. it is not you can request device and we'll give you advice, it is a deliberate attempt to make this determination formal and binding on the agency. this is opposition. a final adjudication of opposition, on a jurisdictional question. >> i think it is formal, and the court doesn't revisit it, because it would usually seem like a waste of time and the somebody had presented the courts -- >> why was it done this way to make it a formal adjudication? malcolm: i don't know why the
formality and the administrative appeal is provided. i think it was intended as a service to landowners that the corps wanted to give the best advice. >> it wasn't anything in it for the epa or corps? i understand we want to inform the public of the agency's position, but is it altruism or was there a reason that the epa wanted it done this way? it has benefits to the enforcement agency in the sense that it landowners receive what the court believes to be accurate information about their property, the likelihood of their complying will be greater, as justice kennedy was pointing out. the preparation of eight jurisdictional determination would be the first step in the permitting process if one was entered into. , thereregular litigation is an inducement potentially for one or other parties to appeal
to delay the resolution of the case. situation, i don't see that inducement as existing. meaning, i doubt very much that landowners who want to use their property for a particular purpose are going to appeal just to delay the government adjudication of an issue that is going to permit them or not permit them to go forward. malcolm: i would agree there is less standard of a miniature of appeal. there is still a pocket of appeal. you could have an appeal on the jurisdictional question. the court jurisdictional determination was not arbitrary and capricious, now you go through the permitting process, there is a separate suit about whether the terms and conditions where -- if i may, and would like to reserve the balance of my time. >> go ahead.
>> mr. hopper? >> inc. you mr. chief justice. may please the courts? the m.o.a. to be binding in anyway. >> you just said they will change it. is that the argument you want to rely on? that ifst said before we rule that way, they could just change it. they would just eliminate the noa. >> it is existing today. noa, the fact the that this is a site specific adjudication suggests this is a binding determination. that is the very purpose of an adjudication. also, as has already been mentioned, it represents itself as being the official view of the agency. the final agency action of the
agency, and will be relied on for five years, even during the permit process. that will not be revisited. all of those things suggest this >> ibinding adjudication was just reading to other agencies rules and practices. the fcc put out rules just this past year, and it says, with respect to some particular matters, the fcc rules say the bureau will not bring an enforcement action against a requesting party, the requesting party meeting someone who requested an opinion, with respect to any action taken in good faith reliance upon an advisory opinion, if all of the relevant facts were fully, completely, and accurately presented to the bureau. there is another that i just came across.
it is a standard fcc securities and exchange commission opinion letter. it says based on the facts presented, the division will not recommend enforcement action to the commission. here is my -- my question is this appears to happen all over the place around the federal government. people setting up offices whose specific purpose is to say come to us, tell us your problem, and we are going to give you a view, and not just a view, we are going to essentially commit that if you have told us the truth, here is your answer, and you can take it to the bank. what i want to know is what is different about this than any of the other cases in which the federal government does that? for good reason, because people want to know these things. iswhat you are describing what would be referred to in this case is a preliminary jurisdictional determination. the regulatory process has built into it the option of an
advisory informational preliminary jurisdictional determination to be issued to the applicant that is nothing more than advisory. it is not binding. it can't be appealed. corrects this is very strong language in these letters. we will not recommend action. we will not bring an enforcement action. we were in the, clear if we passed this, so do these letters. >> that is strong language, but not as strong as an adjudicative determination where rights and obligations are actually decided. in this particular case, the process is so formalized and purports to be final, and purports to be binding, that it
is quite distinguishable from the situation that you are describing. >> let me ask you about that. that is certainly -- this process does last a long time. even mr. stewart, i think, would say, this is a more formal process that many. that exists around the federal government. i'm wondering about the incentives of the kind of distinction you would make. it would suggest that agencies should not -- should drawback, should not give a fully inform you. should not do the fact-finding that the court does here. should just make their processes less formal. in making their processes less formal, also, less accurate and less helpful. i wonder who that benefits in the end. >> i think the agency has more
to lose than a landowner has to gain. by refraining from these kinds of formal adjudications. they indicate that the issue, -- they issue about 54,000 permits and about 3100 individual permits of those eight have ever been appealed administratively. there is no incentive for the government here to drawback on this formal adjudicative process , these in almost all cases landowner is simply going to defer to the agency on jurisdiction. that would be my response to you.
>> i don't quite understand that. it seems like they could make it less formal and provide less assurance and still there would be very few people who would want to run the gauntlet. wouldn't gain anything. all you would do is lose something. accurate,ose is reliable information provided to people about whether, in fact, these orders fall within the clean water act. what's that is the problem. actecause the clean water -- because under the clean water act, it is so difficult to determine the reach of the act, and can only be done through expert analysis, you would never get the kind of detailed reliable information that would define the scope of jurisdiction if you didn't have such a formal process, which
would never occur in the type of generalized ruling that use adjusted. the preliminary jd says we think you may have waters of the united states on your property. jd says thetional opposite. we have made a definitive determination, you can rely on that, you are obligated to get a permit, and you have a right to use property that is not subject to the waters of the united states. brief, but what is the cost to get a jd determination in a case such as yours? can we the agency -- adopt the sort of role that you simply declined to give jurisdictional determination? all that is required in order to receive a jurisdictional determination under the regulatory guideline is to ask.
under the regulatory guideline, the agency is required to respond. the language says the core will give a formal approved jurisdictional determination if one is requested. even if they don't request it in that specific language. earlieroint was made , youin court proceedings may think that the court was you are stuck there, you may have to go to a lengthy trial. it is a complete adjudication of the jurisdiction question. even so, you don't get any kind thereellate review until
is a final judgment in the whole case. why should this be any different? >> i'm not sure i follow your question, your honor. would you repeat that? >> you are urging that you should have -- you should be challenge in court this jurisdictional determination. court were in a different , you would have no immediate right to challenge a jurisdictional determination. why should the situation be different? that is the whole question at issue, your honor. whether we can get this recorder judiciary -- >> if you were in a district court and they made a jurisdictional determination, you are in our power. you disagree.
you think you should be allowed to be free to do what you will. but you lost on a jurisdictional issue and have to stay there. the equivalent would be going through the permitting process. >> we don't know why we don't know -- we don't know why we wouldn't be able to repeal that. there would be some purely legal judgment. can't appeal an adverse ruling on jurisdiction. you want to get out of the case? >> we don't believe that we need to go through the permit process. question,derstand the you go into district court, you say we are from alaska, and here we are in florida. we don't along here. there is no jurisdiction, and the court says you are wrong. that means you have to stay
there, you have to go through the whole proceeding, it is going to cost you $1 million, it is going to take a long time, but you don't get independent review of these jurisdictional questions. i think the question is, if i may say it, is why does that apply here, too? this is just like one part of the whole thing. >> in what sense is it one part of the whole thing? >> if something is going to happen to you until they decide they're going to give you a permit, that is part of it. >> i understand. under avid labs, the court made the determination that if one is in this cast 22 situation, this no-win situation, where even no action results in great loss because your option is to only
abandon the project at great loss, or go for a permit at great cost, or subject yourself to enforcement action at great cost, that that type of hostage choice is sufficient to get you judiciary review. >> do you see any distinction between a jurisdictional determination by an article three district judge and a jurisdictional determination and it -- by enforcement agency? do you think there might be an argument that it is tolerable to wait until the end of the case when a neutral article three judge makes an adverse judicial -- adversity -- adverse jurisdictional determination appealing to wait until the end decision when it is made by an enforcement agency?
>> when an adjudications or even made, there is no further adjudication to been made unless you're talking about requiring a permit prior to judicial review. that is what we find objectionable, your honor. >> a more general way to ask this question, there is no doubt themselveseople face and euro predicaments when they are trying to figure out what to do under the clean water act. course, that is true with respect to any regulatory statute. was is. stuart's point that the predicament is the same regardless of the jd process. if the jd process didn't exist, your client would be facing the exact same predicament. indeed, the jd process reason for being is that it is supposed to help people in dealing with
this predicament. it is supposed to provide them with information that they wouldn't otherwise have. >> exactly. >> that seems to me to be a good reason for mr. stewart to prevail in this case. is thedicament predicament. and it is a predicament that comes from the clean water act. thing process is the only -- the only thing it is supposed to do is give you more information so that you can make the choices that the statute puts to your. >> it does more than that. honor, thett, your second prong of finality is satisfied if any of three requirements are met. number one, a right is determined, or an obligation is determined, or legal consequences flow. by virtue of the adjudicative determination in this case, if obligation has been established,
that they cannot use 150 acres of their property without being obliged to get a permit, -- >> that is the question. whether there is any obligation or if it is simply information about will happen given different courses of action. >> the clean water act itself doesn't say anything about this particular property. the clean water act doesn't cover all waters. if only way to find out there are jurisdictional waters which will trigger the requirement or a permit is to go through this site specific analysis. >> that seems right, but it is also why people go to the treasury department for tax letters, and it is also why people go to the fcc for advice about what they can and cannot do with respect to securities. there are 100 different examples. >> i'm not aware of those examples having an appeals
process the results in a final agency action that by treatment and regulation and practice constitute a binding conclusion. >> the premise of the question is that the army corps of engineers is doing it just out of the goodness of its heart, that this is a lot of work for bem, but they just want to nice to landowners, and that is why they have set up this process. maybe that is correct, although i understood what you said earlier to suggest that that is quote -- not quite how you see the process. that they do this for their own purposes, because it expands their enforcement power. who have adowners question about the status of strongand have a incentive to ask for jurisdictional determination. that alerts the court to the fact that this is a property that might be subject to their jurisdiction.
-- any issue a affirmative jurisdictional determination, as a practical matter, that will mean in most instances that the project is shut down. >> this is a problem of the agency's own making. when congress passed the clean water act, it prohibited discharges to navigable waters. as this court addressed, that is so broadly interpreted that it covers virtually any wet spot in the country. think, and what i thought your answer would be is that informal advice is not final agency action. there is a statute. it was passed in 1946. it is called the ministry to procedures act. thingss to divide such as rulemaking by the agency. from a call pushing roughly the
same result by never having a role but telling everything -- everyone informally what they would do in such circumstances. ,t might be that the formal is other things being equal, final agency action in respect to that matter. it might be that the latter is not. i think what you are telling me is what i should do next is go read those federal rules and is thisons and see, more like informal advice, or is it more like formal rulemaking? i go and i make up my mind. that is my job in this instance. >> to help make up your mind, we would refer you to frozen foods. foods and abbott labs and bennett are examples of what falls on the formal final side of the line. a few other things will be on the other side of the line.
frozen foods is virtually indistinguishable from this case. they were essentially a jurisdiction determination case. do you think this would count as a formal adjudication under the apa? >> yes. there is the -- the agency applied the law to a specific set of facts, had a formal hearing, and issued a final ruling. chevron it receive deference? >> not in that sense now. >> not a nonsense, i would not think so. there is a very fine opinion by judge suton on this question -- judge sutton on this question. the advisory type rulings that are not final are the ones where
there are no chevron deference given. that is the proper line to draw. that is when you know there is a kind of formality to it that should count with respect to the question of final miss -- finalness. of thefinality standards bennett second prompt create we have identified right that has been determined, an obligation that has been determined, we talked about legal consequences. anyone of those satisfies the finality standard to give us review. a what is the best example of legal effect that follows from a --isdictional enforcement risk of , because the very existence of facie constitutes prima
evidence if one were discharged without a permit. >> that sounds to me practical and not legal. >> i think that is legal, your honor. as the -- as this court , thisized in sackett jurisdictional determination increases the risk of civil and criminal liability. >> the determination of willfulness on the part of the land owner? >> when the court is looking at -- and the agency, at civil penalties the water act requires that the court look at the good faith efforts and by extension the bad faith efforts. now that we have a formal determination that these were in the states, there is a knowing violation which brings in potential criminal sanctions
against the land owner. >> i'm sorry, please. isn't that true in every case of an opinion letter? whether it is from the government or a private party? there are always cases in which people say, you had an opinion letter, it said x and you did y. all over the place and litigation with respect to every single compliance -- piece of comp alliance -- compliance advice the government gives. >> with the -- with the one exception that the weight the court is going to give to those types of opinions is much different than what the court -- a final determination as to jurisdiction after having gone through a formal appeals process. the weight is quite different.
let me also make a comparison between this and sackett when this court considered whether double penalties would apply in that case. you might require that you might recall during oracle argument, mr. stewart said that risk -- with respect to double penalties, there would be $37,500 a day because of a violation of the statute and $37,500 a day because of a violation of the compliance order. he said that reading of the law was entirely theoretical and did not know if it would even fly. here, we do not have a theoretical risk, we have an actual risk. the clean water act says a knowing violation shall result in a civil fine of -- a criminal fine of no less than $5,000 and no more than $50,000 a day and
will increase the prison time 1 to 3 years.m it does not have the same weight as the final binding determination. the main problems we have with the requirement of going through one can process before seek judiciary review under the apa are fourfold. first of all, the permit process adds nothing to the jurisdictional question. it does not add any facts which are relevant and it does not clarify the law. it is simply an idol act which the law affords. secondly, it puts the timing of
the judiciary review entirely in the hands of the agency. it is an open ended invitation to the agency to delay forever the final permit issuance, denying the land owner of right -- a right to ever have judiciary review. that was important to this court in a sackett when this court was looking at whether an enforcement action -- whether that would be an appropriate remedy and this court said it .as not even though the landowner may be --e to commit a violation has no control over when the enforcement act would follow. the fact that there is no control in the land owner as to when the judiciary review would
occur, we think is piloted of .he apa the apa requires an immediate , that is theiew intent of congress. once finality has been established, it seems to me that the court should be looking at ways to facilitate judicial review and not find ways to deter it or delay. >> in response to your argument on the part of the -- we would like to get into this on the first place. there is no statute that requires us to hold these jurisdictional determinations. .orget it your client is exposed to the very same things under the statute, right? because the agency have provided something, at least some benefit
to the public it third -- it served, it become subject to immediate review. where, if they had done nothing, all we have is the statute, then your client is left with the same choices, right? >> you might recall, your honor, that this is the motion where we take the facts as asserted in the complaint as correct. the complaint suggests that this jurisdictional determination should never have been issued. that the waters on this particular property are not waters of the united states and a negative jurisdictional determination should have been issued. of the a unique result jurisdictional determination and does not follow from the statute. under the statute, we should be exempt.
under the jurisdictional determination we have to get a permit. >> i thought your statement would benefit that this is a great -- would illustrate this is a great benefit to the agency. it gives -- it is a way for them to exercise their authority without effective judicial review. that is a significant enforcement tool for them. they might be unwilling to give it up if they had the option. >> i think there is no question they will not give it up, they have nothing to lose. in almost all cases, the recipients of the jurisdictional determination -- the first of the judgment of the agency, it is used for leverage and i would fromo distort litigation an individual that they could
never do if they could establish , whetherudicial review there are jurisdictional waters on the subject. i agree with you, i think that is one of the problems. we think one of the difficulties of the process is the cost. the cost is prohibitive, then it -- it raises am potential due process problem, and a problem of practicality. >> how do i determine how much is too much? for some people $3000 is too much. i do not know your client's financial wherewithal but $10,000 would be reasonable. when should we do size -- decide
how much is too much? >> i do not think it is a question that needs to be answered generally. it can be answered specifically in this case. in this particular case, the landowner has been asked to $100,000 in additional studies to you might recall that the applicant started the permit process and was willing to go through the permit process until it became unreasonable and to cost prohibitive to proceed. that is when they asked for jurisdictional determination. >> thank you, council. mr. stewart? two minutes. >> with respect to the permitting process. there is no basis to require
that it is systematically unavailable as mr. hopper was referring to. 50,000 permit authorizations and a little over 3000 individual permits are granted each year. the process may be expensive in individual cases, but it is regularly involved -- invoked successfully. if the court and the land owner come to an agreement, he court offers to permit the activity on terms and conditions that the landowner regards as acceptable, .hat may obviate the need that is the kind of consideration that is often invoked and is a justification for not submitting interlaboratory review. a person who seeks immediate review may turn out not to resolve after all. with respect to the analogy for district court litigation, with standard oil the court has
already taken the step to saying the same applies to district court litigation. this is not a court of administrative law. on the whole, we are -- we are more worried about peace ability geisha and then deferred litigation. finality is not the key. in franklin and dalton, it was intensely formal and structured and they were designed to have an effect on the presidents decision-making. they were not legally binding on the president. the same thing is through -- is true here with the binding effect of jurisdictional determination on the recipient. thank you. >> thank you, council. macintoshes is dave hisacintosh who shares thoughts. he is behind a string of anti-trump ads in several
primary states. you can watch the interview on c-span. this weekend, the c-span city's tour takes you to long beach, california. book tv, learn about women's contributions to the world war ii effort. >> when the u.s. army was looking for a place to build a plant to reduce aircraft, which they thought we would need in world war ii, they picked long beach. we have a wonderful airport that was founded in 1923. it was one of the first airports that had a takeoff and landing in different directions, which the army loved. they could use military planes in a way they cannot use in other places.
douglas went into full production mode and was turning out planes 24/7 and then they needed a lot of people to work here. the men went off to war, the women were brought out of the house and into the work force. at its peak, douglas was employing 45,000 people a day in the long beach area. about 48% of the people were women. >> and on american history tv, we have been to long beach and explored the importance. we are a little over 104 years old. started on aually wooden wharf and was a lumber terminal that used to come from the northwest to buy lumber here for the growing city of long beach and the region. since 1940, we have had the u.s.
navy, the naval station, and the long beach naval shipyard. they were here until the early 90's and unfortunately, through the base closure process, the naval complex shut down. what we were able to do was take an old federal facility and turn it into, at that time and it still is one of our modern container terminals. yearswe are today, 104 later, sitting on the most modern, sustainable, marine terminal in the world. >> watch the c-span's cities tour. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. coming up next on c-span, ted cruz and john kasich speaking to
the republican party of milwaukee county at a dinner last night in wisconsin. that is followed by washington journal, live with your calls and a look at today's headlines. the presidential candidates are in wisconsin ahead of the primary on tuesday. the republican party hosted a dinner on friday that included presidential candidate, ted cruz. he was introduced by scott walker, who publicly endorsed the texas senator earlier this week. walker: thank you. what a great crowd. welcome to serve all of the best fish fry in the entire country. .t is good to be close to home good to see you sheriff, i feel safe already with david clark here in the front row.
great to be here, i will spend a couple minutes telling you a few things. i have a question to begin, how many of you think wisconsin is better off than it was five years ago? [applause] that is because of all of you. that is because of all of you here tonight. think about it, with all of these national folks. let's give a little commercial about the great state of wisconsin. it is common sense, principled, conservative leadership. theting me in 2010 but in majority and state senate. they -- you all help me with the recall election. in each of those election years you also helped us add numbers to the republican majorities and assembly in the senate. look what we got, i better
economy, a better budget, better schools, a better wisconsin create sound pretty good? theseabout it, in each of categories read the report that came out for the federal government for jobs for the showeds month, january that in the state of wisconsin, we had one of the lowest unemployment rates we have had in about a decade and a half. the percentage of people working in the state is now the sixth highest in the entire country. [applause] was simple, we got government out of the way. we lowered income and property taxes. firstered tuition for the time. andulled back frivolous out-of-control lawsuits and we put you, the people of the
state, back in charge of the states economy. and you responded. more people are working in the state of wisconsin at just about any point in our state's history. [applause] balanced budget, we have had a budget surplus every year we have been in office. a rainy day fund 165 times bigger than when we took office. remember the protesters a few years ago? remember when they said public education would be in trouble? i am proud to say in our public schools, a ct scores are the second best in the country and graduation rates are the third best in the country. [applause] commonsense conservative principles work. all of you in this state understand that. all of you who helped us knock
on doors and make phone calls and talked to your neighbors and coworkers and friends. and most importantly all of you who prayed for us when we went through protests. you know what the battle is all about, but you know it is worth it. not for us, not for republican majorities, but for our children and grandchildren. we thought more about the next generation then the next election did the people of wisconsin have responded time and time again to that positive, conservative message read thank you for making that possible. tonight i will ask for your help one more time. not just here in the state, but for this country. there are a lot of people who helped us out and a lot of you may be thinking about this candidate or that candidate. i hope for those who have not made up your mind, i can tell
you who i am casting my vote or on tuesday. for theou will join me romance -- for the momentum that will come from that and the impact it will have on this country, this nomination, and the country as a whole. am endorsing ted cruz to be the next president of the united states. [applause] you three quick reasons why. we do not shout, we just talk in the state. the protesters tried to shout us out and we quietly got the work done and showed that our results work. i will give you three simple reasons i am proud to support ted to be our nominee and ultimately our president. first, ted cruz is a constitutional conservative. do you know why that matters?
we have shown in this state why that matters. he understands that the founders of this country, some 240 years incredibly unbelievably brave founders of this country had a pretty good vision. they understood the power should not be concentrated in washington, instead it should flood to the states and to the people. if the people in states like wisconsin can take charge of their government, and take back their federal government. we need someone committed to the constitution, and that is ted cruz. [applause] secondly, what i love is something we can really relate to in wisconsin. ted cruz is someone who is not afraid to take on the status quote -- status quo.
we showed america what it means to take power out of the hands of the government special interest and put it firmly into the hands of the hard-working taxpayers. it has worked, it is about time we had that kind of common sense leadership in our nations capital. cruz brought that kind of approach and opinion to washington and it shook things up. it shook up the democrats, it shook up the liberals, and occasionally it shook up republicans in washington, but he does not care because his you, thency is american hard-working people and that is exactly what he is going to do as your next president. [applause] .o me, there is one more reason you have the philosophical and the policy reason why i am supporting ted cruz to be president. my reasons are all about who i am for, not about who i am
against. we like to be for something, not against something. the third reason is a practical reason. cruz, without a doubt, is thecandidate who can win nomination of this party, bring the party together at the nomination, and defeat hillary clinton this fall. [applause] between now and tuesday, let's remember and remind others across the country that as republicans, our opponents are not the people on the primary ballot. our opponent is hillary clinton. someone who is so far out of touch with reality, someone that even the democrats under and, that is part of the reason why bernie sanders has so much report -- so much support.
even democrats understand we cannot support -- we cannot trust hillary clinton on benghazi, her e-mails, leading this country. [applause] so it is my honor to tell you who i am for. i just came from oshkosh, i was he -- i was there talking in winnebago county and had the good fortune to sit next to ted cruz's dad who is a minister. my dad is a preacher. kidsof us are preacher's and we know what it is like to grow up with the scrutiny of being a preacher's kid. we understand how our kids feel being the kid of a governor or senator, hopefully one of them will be the kids of presidents. thinking about being next to his dad, it brought a smile to my
face because i could see some of the -- some of the ways my dad talks and the things my dad does. i thought about growing up in that small country in south set -- small city in south-central wisconsin. growing up as a kid of the preacher in the 80's and at a time when the leader of our country was someone we could look up to, someone who thought about the future more than jus his own. someone who had a vision of how to bring this country together, not by running away from his principles, but instead by .mbracing those principles that was ronald reagan. ted and i both came of age at that time. ted and i both came of age, not in office. we both came of age, because we were in high school. like paul and people
ryan and a lot of you here, remember that ronald reagan was our president. he was the leader of the free world and we believed in him because he had a plan to move this country forward in the right direction. he was a principled conservative who was optimistic about the american people. the gentleman who is going to win the wisconsin primary on tuesday, who is going to unite this party when he receives the nomination in cleveland, and with -- and who will once and all put us on track. put your hands together for ted cruz. [applause]
millions of men and women across the state of wisconsin stood with your robin or and said, we have your back. i want to tell you it inspired millions of americans across this country. it inspired me. and it demonstrated that when we the people stand together, we can beat the special interests that are bankrupting our kids and grandkids. [applause] principleurage and that scott walker and the people of wisconsin demonstrated in that fight over and over again is exactly the courage and principle we need in washington, d.c. to turn this country around. [applause] humbled, so honored to be standing here