tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN September 30, 2016 9:00am-3:01pm EDT
opened up a vast amount of money that we don't know where the money is coming from and yet it is impacting, influencing people's vote in our country. and the other decision was a shelby decision which sort of dismantled the election laws of 1965. i wondered if you would speak to those. guest: i think they are both examples of conservatives being activists and liberals being strict construcksists, if you take the shelby county case, in which they dismantled the voting rights act, they completely road roughshod over findings painstakingly made by congress that there were bad actor states which were denying mainly african-americans the suffrage in certain states and that the justice department had to scrutinize those states very
carefully to make sure there was no discrimination. the liberals said they would adhere to what congress had found and decided. the conservatives said they would make their own findings and overturn what congress had decided. citizens united quite similarly, the conservatives felt that the contribution of money is a form of speech. that requires something of a stretch because i don't think the founding fathers ever would have thought of political contributions as being a form of speech. since it was a form of speech it was protected and therefore it was unconstitutional for congress to try to regulate campaign contributions. i think the results in both cases are undesirable. they were both 5-4 decisions and both decided along partisan line. host: do you think that the increase in 5-4 decisions or the
increase and focus on the 5-4 decisions most supreme court cases come out close to if not unanimous, do you think that has driven the partisanship you see on the court? guest: i think chief justice roberts, who i think has been a marvelous chief justice, although don't always agree with him, has been quite correct to point out that 5-4 and 6-3 decisions are undesirable because of the impact on public confidence. and he said he would like to see narrower decisions that everyone could buy into. he hasn't really achieved his purpose in most cases. host: our republican line. next is bill calling in from pittsburgh. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. mr. zirin, how are you? guest: how are you, bill? caller: doing very well but listening to c-span, listening to the program, i'm a little
more upset than i usually am. we're lly impressed by dealing with your view which is clearly extremely partisan about the persons of the supreme court. and i'm calling to object seriously to the characterization of division between -- the divisions within the court as quotes liberal and quotes conservative, unquote. you just touched on that a bit. the question has always been at the stages, at what points supreme court should speak. and where it should exercise restraint and allow the political system to continue. he quotes, liberal approach,
has been to expand the equal protection clause. the commerce clause. and several others to the point where there is nothing the supreme court can't deal with. and i find that is the basis of the argument. on the court. what has become scandalously politicized is the choice, selection of supreme court justices. host: let's give our guest a chance to respond. guest: first place, liberal and conservative are labels, i use them for convenience because the popular are used by media and scholars of the supreme court in the discussions. i think generally speaking liberals are justices appointed by democratic presidents. conservatives by republican presidents.
there are surprises because there have been justices in the past mainly appointed by republican presidents who have taken a moderate or liberal position. and sided with the liberal wing of the court. and we have had certainly earl warren and william brennan appointed by eisenhower was the two worst mistakes became very liberal justices and found new rights in the constitution. we had people like potter stewart and louis powell, appointed by republicans who took moderate positions. surprised d souter george h.w. bush. so these are not hard and fast distinctions and what is so interesting is that someone gets on the court and they completely change their ideology and stance. i think the most notable example is hugo black who was a member
of the ku klux klan because he was a senator from alabama he said he did it because it was the only way he could get elected became one of the most liberal justices on the court. he was appointed by franklin d. ruse vell because roosevelt wanted to reward the diction yea contracts for -- dixiecrats for their support. host: we're talking with james zirin the author of asks supremely partisan." he's also host of a show called conversations why the digital age which can be seen weekly throughout the new york metropolitan area. next is david from mount sterling, kentucky on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. appreciate you being on there. the comment i'm wanting to make, i'm a dedicated christian, democrat. i'm a hillary supporter 100%. but what i'm calling about, a
lot of my family is republicans, sir. they don't remember there back in 1935 and 1965 when the democrats got social security and medicare in. the question -- i want him to comment on is you go to church, the preacher to get up and say, well, they took god out of the schools and all that. i do know that a lady down south filed a court decision. it went to the supreme court and i do agree that the supreme court have got the say so all over, all other courts. i would like to comment. i agree with the supreme court on taking the -- when the lady filed a suit against taking prayer out of school. where it says we all created equal. that's what the bible says. host: let's give jim a chance to
response to that. the issue of religion in schools. guest: well, we don't necessarily have to agree with supreme court decisions. they are the last word on the constitution. as justice jackson said, we're not final because we're infallible, we're infallible because we're final. it's believed by many that the supreme court is anti-christian, or they want to take god out of the schools, or they don't like it if there's a compulsory pledge of allegiance. but these are all recent decision that is they have arrived at and we entrust these nine individuals to decide these questions correctly. i don't always agree with the court's religion decisions. there's one recent one called count of greece which i strongly disagreed with where christian said at re said --
public meetings and they divided sharply on that one. but nonetheless i accept their decisions. i also recognize that the process by which they arrive at it is a judicial process with a respect precedent, with an analyzed precedent. and judges do make the law, but they make it in a very different way from the way congress makes the law. host: next we have joe calling in on our republican line. from dundalk, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd just like to say that i think the constitution was written to be upheld the way it is written. i have a very big problem with roe vs. wade and the fact that a portion has now become a means of birth control. which is ridiculous. 10, 12 pregnancies over a lifetime that are terminated. i just don't get it.
thank you. guest: i agree with you that the constitution was made to be interpreted as it's written. i think one of the great contributions of the late justice scalia was he reminded his colleagues that they muse be lawyers and start with the text. -- they must be lawyers and start with the text, because that's where lawyers must start. often because the constitution is written in such glittering generallyities, the text does not give you the answer. where the constitution talks about due process of law or equal protection of the law, those words as lofty as they might be don't really provide the answer. so you have to look from there to what the original understanding was. i agree with you. then i think you have to look beyond that and -- because a lot of things have happened since 1789. we have g.p.s. we have d.n.a. testing. we have the internet.
we have video games. it's a very different technology -- technological society. and we have to trust the judges to analyze how values that are expressed in the constitution are to be translated into a contemporary technological society. host: richard from germantown, maryland, on our democratic line. caller: i was very pleasantly surprised when i turned on the tv today and saw the title of your book. i am really shocked at how little criticism the court gets for so many outrageous things. and i'll give you two examples and then i'll love to hear your comment. justice thomas, his wife was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to run around the country talking against obamacare. yet he sits on the decision and votes exactly the way his wife wants him to. a perfect example of a judge's
vote being bought and paid for. secondly, bloody bush v. gore. but for bush v. gore, there would have been no iraq war. every penny spent in iraq, every drop of blood of americans, our allies and on the iraqis, is on the heads of those incredibly corrupt justices that gave us that decision. host: let's let mr. zirin respond. guest: i don't know quite where to begin. i agree with you that bush v. gore was a partisan decision. it was a 5-4 decision. but later on "the new york times" recounted the vote throughout the state of florida and bush would have won the state of florida if the court had allowed the counting to continue. i don't think it would have hanged the outcome as scalia
argued later if they had decided the other way. i don't think that the justices should pick the president. that's not what was intended. that's what madison wrote. i think that was an unfortunate decision for the court. as to the ethics of justice thomas, whom i have a great deal of respect for, the supreme court, unfortunately, is not bound by the cannons of judicial ethics. that's why ginsberg really didn't do anything wrong when she was critical of trump. and all the other federal judges are bound by those cannons, but the supreme court is not. but the appearance of impropriety is great and i think the activities of thomas' wife are unfortunate because they give ground to the very criticism you have made of him. host: next we have dave calling in from jacksonville, florida,
on our independent line. you're on with jim zirin. caller: high, it's great to see somebody -- hi, it's great to see somebody with your intelligence and nonbias or poe laret-- poe layerity on there to on uss this -- polarity there to discuss this. the fathers of our constitution meant for it to be indoor in that it just wasn't a static document. it was meant to be interpreted to fit the times. along those lines are we still having the madison-jefferson push and pull with states rights between the conservatives and liberals? guest: i think that's right. remember jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the constitution. he was over in france at the time. so it was mainly madison and hamilton, although washington
and john jay, the first chief justice, put the oar in the water. i think the problem that they faced was they had to get a government. and in drafting a written constitution. and they realized there were many issues, notably the issue of race, which would have to be left for later day if they were going to get a constitution at all. and that is why we had to wait until 1868. the equal protection clause. and we probably had to wait until 1954 for brown v. board of education to see the full exposition of what equal protection of the laws would mean. host: next, connie on our democratic line from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. came here and i i became a citizen i had to
study to get citizenship. but i understood from the constitution is whatever we put in is to interpret the constitution. i'm a liberal. i'm a conservative. they were there to read the papers and interpret them. no matter who he favors for. another thing is, you know, when i go to thomas and alito, think they are for the republicans. and why we have this fight about -- people going to be to interpret the constitution. not in favor of one party or in favor of the other. host: we only have a few second left. i want to give our guest a chance to respond. guest: i agree with you that we have to interpret the
constitution as it's written. i think it's inevitable that the justices breathe their life experience and ideology into their interpretation of the constitution. you look at capital punishment, for example. at the time of the constitution we hanged people for horse stealing. at the time of the constitution if you kissed your wife in public on sunday they put you in the stocks for 30 days. is that a cruel and unusual punishment? certainly wasn't then. it is now. you would think can't imagine a judge who would uphold it except scalia said it was stupid but constitutional. but i think that while as much as scalia hated it, the constitution as a living document and to some degree justices have to breathe into it he experience of modern life and contemporary society which is what oliver wendell holmes said a judge should do in interpreting the law.
host: author of "supremely partisan" how raw politics tips the scales in the u.s. supreme court. an be found on his website jimzirin.com. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. enjoyed it. host: and up next we'll be going back to your calls on this morning's question, whether a divided government can work or whatever else is on your mind. you can call in 202-748-8,000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents 202-748-8002 and reach out to us on social media. we'll be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we'll explore the literary life and histry of pueblo, colorado. >> it's the railroad and the steel industry and coal industry that bring pueblo as a city to where it is today. i think it sort of speaks to how
this is a natural place to settle with the confluence. people still keep coming back to this place because it's a natural place to build a city. >> on book tv on c-span2, fawn amber montoya, colorado state university professor and author of the book "making an american work force" the rockefellers and the legacy of ludlow. talks about the deadly strike between miners and the colorado fuel and iron company which resulted in a public relations nightmare for john d. rockefeller jr. >> united mine workers president actually walks out to rockefeller's car and tells him to turn around. he says you're not welcome here. i cannot guarantee your safety. >> author matthew harris discusses his book, the founding fathers, and the debate over religion in revolutionary america. >> religion is interesting. they didn't talk about religion at the constitutional convention. in fact, one of the only things they said was is that you didn't have to hold public office -- you didn't have to believe in the bible or some form of
christianity to hold public office. >> on american history tv on c-span3, hear about the ludlow massacre which took place during the colorado coal strike of 1913 and 1914. we'll visit the steel work center of the west museum and talk with its cureator, victoria miller, about the colorado fuel and iron company. >> this is the shift change whistle. many generations of pueblo children learned how to tell time by this whistle. >> the c-span cities tour of pueblo, colorado. saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates at visiting cities across the country. >> go to c-span.org tuesday evening for the vice presidential debate on your desktop, phone, or tablet. watch live streams of the debate
and video on demand of every question to the candidates and their answers. use your video clipping tool to create video clips of your favorite debate moment. to share on social media. not able to watch? listen to the debate live on the c-span radio app. it's free to download from the app store or google play. live coverage of the vice presidential debate tuesday evening on c-span.org and the -span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we return now. talking to our viewers about our estion from this morning, is -- can a divided government work? as we have now with a democrat in the white house and a congress controlled by republicans. ay is calling in from lake dallas, texas. you're undecided. why's that? caller: thanks so much for c-span. i watch it all the time. it's really the only show i watch.
i'm so distraught about how politics just drives our decisionmaking. even it's just -- and it's just across the entire spectrum of our government. bush classifies something that he doesn't want anybody to know about so he just directly classifies it. he doesn't do it for the right reasons. he classifies it for political reasons. so he doesn't get caught doing something. likewise politicians both democrat and republican, they make decisions on policy that they should be doing all this for the people, but they don't. well, not all of them don't. but a lot of them do. they either through the lobbyists, lobby and direct lobby and putting money in their hip pocket or they are constantly running -- they are constantly running their campaigns while they are in congress. host: let me ask you this. do you think it's possible for
one branch of government to be a check on the other and that would be an argument in favor of divided government, right? caller: well, that's a great question. that's something we should certainly look at. however i will turn this around for the moment. look at obama. i believe that when he came into office he truly wanted to make the right changes. and the republicans from the very ground go, from the get-go, they just said we're not going to do anything with obama. so for political reasons simply because of their republican platform and the things that they espoused in their platform, they didn't want to work with obama. it's one of the reasons why he's had to make so many executive orders because he couldn't get anything done. host: we're going to take a break from our discussion on divided government. go to a phone interview with
tony romm of "politico"." he's a senior technology reporter and he's going to talk to us a little bit about tomorrow -- the internet -- oversight over the internet domain architecture. we'll go from u.s. control to a multination caretaker community. good morning, toney. guest: good morning, thanks for having me. host: thanks for joining us. explain to us in simple terms if you can what's going to happen to the internet oversight tomorrow? guest: that's actually a big question right now. originally the obama administration had planned beginning on october 1 to transition oversight of the domain name system to the international community and its global nonprofit known as ik in real people terms that means the system we're on, your browser like gookle chrome and you're typing in "politico."com to read political stories. it's the guts that makes that
show up when you type it in. that's that was the whole plan. it's been two years of an effort by the obama administration to ensure the international community has a greater say. has greater oversight over the system. but things recently have hit a snag. first folks in congress wanted to block it but ultimately they didn't prevail. and now we're waiting to hear from the federal court in texas which is weighing a challenge from a group of states attorney general who think the obama administration's plan is inconstitutional. and if a judge later today sauce that he wants more time to take a look at an issue and he imposes a preliminary injunction on it, that transition that was slated for october 1 may not happen for quite some time. host: i'm going to read from your story on this a little more about this challenge. it says in their lawsuit the attorneys general for arizona, oklahoma, nevada, and texas contend that the transition lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal give away of u.s. government property.
that it would be so unchecked that it could "effectively enable or prohibit free speech on the internet." does this argument have merit? guest: a lot of folks in the obama administration and a lot of technical experts say it certainly doesn't. first they point to studies from government watchdogs that say, but in fact there isn't any give away of u.s. government property. and they argue that there really isn't a free speech issue here because what we're talking about isn't a content of what you're seeing on the internet but just the day-to-day oversight of the architecture. the things that this group called ican is already doing just with the u.s. government standing overhead. this really all bubbled up just a few weeks ago when folks like senator ted cruz began to use the september budget bill, the most recently continuing resolution, to try to block the commerce department from proceeding with this transition. folks like senator cruz have said that, this might empower the likes of russia and china
who seek the censor the web. another argument with residents on republicans on capitol hill, but if you talk to tech companies like google and facebook and amazon, or talk to technical experts, all they say is that the obama administration's plan doesn't do any of these bad things that republicans have said. they just point to the republicans as trying to stall on an issue that the obama administration has put a lot of priority on in the past few months. host: a little more what you were talking about, today's washington times. proponents of the transfer say engineers, businesses, technical experts, civil society groups should lead the internet forward rather than the u.s. government. whereas conservatives such as senator ted cruz of texas say president obama is diluting american power. thus creating space for rogue actors such as china, russia, or iran, to wield greater influence over web access. is this something congress can stop? guest: it might be something that congress can stop.
folks like senator ted cruz wanted to use the most recent bill funding the government until september to block the commerce department from proceeding. essentially they were going to use the power of the purse to prevent this transition from happening. but senator mcconnell, leader mcconnell, others in the senate ultimately prevailed on that issue and they didn't include a prohibition in the most recent funding bill. that being said remember that bill only keeps the government running until december. we have a world in which the court comes back today in texas and says we need more time to study it, we want to weigh the constitutional issues here, that creates another opening for congressional republicans who want to try just one more time to block the obama administration. that being said, we also have next year we have a new president. we have this issue hanging over 2016. and we have heard both hillary clinton and donald trump weigh in on this very wonky issue about the domain name system. as you might expect clinton has taken obama's side.
she believes the international community should have the say in the oversight here. and donald trump unexpectedly rushed to the defense of ted cruz last week. and cruz was very quick to point to his support from trump despite the fact the two were pretty bitter opponents on the 2016 primary trail. that election ultimately has some consequences even for the future of the internet domain name system. just to go back to something else you said. the international community has been so vocal on this, particularly because of what the u.s. did when it comes to surveillance. it's been since the 1990's that washington has tried to transition oversight of the domain name system to world control, but what quickened it was the leaks from edward snowden, as you had governments around the world looking at the reports that the u.s. was having its thumb on the internet's traffic, many of the webpages that had been loaded around the world, there really was a push to see if other governments could have more of a day-to-day
say over what happens with the architecture of the internet. that's why the obama administration pursued this plan because they want to keep governments, including the u.s., out of it. they want the technical expertise from folks at ican. they want the academics and so forth, to be the ones that guide the future of the internet. and not the likes of russia and china who are very angry at the extent of u.s. surveillance. host: thank you so much for joining us. tony romm, senior technology reporter from "politico." we'll go back to our viewer calls about whether a divided government and work. up next is ray calling in from new mexico. do you prefer one party rule, why? caller: definitely. the recent experience by obama administration -- the republican party did a lot of harm to the country.
do nd, president obama to executive orders. and third, there's no worry about power from executive government on this regard because there's a lot of checks and balances in our government. even within congress. there can be a lot of committees although it's all the same party, they will be overseeing all the activities of the government. host: taking a look at one of our headlines today. israelis are flocking to mourn former president shimon perez. as seen in the story in the "usa today." that funeral taking place earlier today. to mourn the former israeli leader. included dignigaries, john kerry, who appeared for that. as a programming note, c-span
will air shimon perez's funeral in its entirety later tonight on c-span. you can check your listings for that. next we have joe. joe is calling in from buffalo, new york. you are undecided as to whether divided government can work, joe, why is that? caller: i'm not sure. thanks for c-span. i look at it this way. you got all those very old congressmen and senators in there. i understand that their staffs are really experienced people. but we need some kind of term limits. these people are just way too old. way too stuck in their ways. i talk to a lot of young people and they just can't stand it. they can't even listen to any of these people for two minutes. let alone give their own opinion. i just want to say that we need to get up off our butts and vote ore.
these small elections in ourtowns -- towns and states we have to get involved. this is terrible. you can't talk to a young person for five minutes about politics. they don't want to hear it. we got to get rid of some of these old people and recycle these people. thanks a lot for c-span. host: glenn calling in from buffalo, new york. as we continue our discussion about divided government. glenn, you say a divided government can work. why do you think that? caller: first i thought the state, the way you grouped the different categories for divided government, for one party, it sounded negative so i called in on the undecided line. but after you mentioned checks and balances it clarified it for me a bit. i just want to say that i think the checks and balances are a tool that have been established
for our use as a society to solve the problems. and it seems like we're going away from that. one party looking across the line to the other party. doesn't seem to be able to see what they can offer. i have always been an independent and not said i would vote specifically democratic or republican. simply because of that. because i think looking to the other side to see what's of value from their point of view is a very important part of our government. our positions seem to be geared toward something that's kind of superficial in our society in that we're trying to make it into a contest. we're looking for supreme winners and losers. and i think that that's not quite what our founding fathers wanted us to do. i think if we go back to that it would be great if we could. host: we're talking about divided government with our viewers. democrats can call 202-748 shall
8,000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, call 202-748-8002. you can also reach us on twitter and on facebook. let's take a look at what paul ryan said yesterday during the washington ideas forum when he was asked whether he could work with hillary clinton if she can win. >> as you have listened this year, have you heard anything that you could work with hillary clinton on if she's elected president? we're done. >> we'll work with whoever wins whatever office. obviously i think with the unified republican government we can get so much more done. i'm tired of divided government. it doesn't work very well. we're just at loggerheads. we have gotten some good things done. but the big things, poverty, the debt crycy, the economy, health care, these things are stuck in divided government. that's why we think a unified republican government is the way to go.
host: we're up next we have ann calling in from hagerstown, maryland. ann, you prefer a divided government. tell us why. caller: because it takes two parties to make a country better. and we have two different types of decisions that we have to make. i used to be -- i was an independent because i have voted for republican and i have voted for democrat. i was neither one because one person's value was the other one. i don't knowsaying what i am today because i don't hear from neither party about for are they going to do women. i need to know these things. i haven't heard a word spokeon on that behalf. host: let me ask you this, do
you have concerns with the gridlock we see now with the democrats in the white house and congress controlled by republicans? caller: i think the republicans now is for the rich. that's something -- the poor people, if republicans could become our republicans, the poor doesn't have a chance. host: up next we have norm. norm is calling in from new mexico. ou like one party rule, why? caller: well, i'd like to have a party of technocrats people trained to run a government since it's getting so complex. i'm a lifelong republican. throwback here philosophies that are
devolutional that are against the natural progressive evolution. like the evangalist and the tea party. vote for these people on their one issue and they are intransigent when they get to congress. and they will not compromise to work out a deal. ou learn in history that the evolution of the ability to compromise is one of the factors that actually fostered the development of the democracy. host: let me ask you this. if both executives and congressional branches, legislative branches, are ruled by the same party, is compromise ven necessary? caller: yeah, because impeachment have different values and are in different -- at different levels of development. so the points of view are going to be quite different.
and, yeah, there's still going to be a need for compromise. there always will be in a democratcy. host: in today's "new york times," the congressional memo focuses on progress. it says progress, it depends on the party that's talking. talking about congress and the rule of partisanship. it says this is congress where the case for partisanship is upheld and defended best. and the leaders of both parties made their closing arguments on thursday concerning who was more responsible for gridlock and which party was best positioned to lead next year. the republican senate has been a flop, said senator harry reid of nevada. subtle and gracious as ever to his colleagues across the aisle. for their part republicans picked through a greatest hit list of their legislative accomplishments including the passage of a revision of no child left behind as well as a long-term infrastructure bill.
mitch mcconnell said i focused on things we had bipartisan agreement on. saying he hopes his vulnerable incumbent can take that message on the road in their fall campaigns this year. that's "the new york times" on how -- whether partisanship is to blame for action or inaction in congress. up next we have bill who is calling in from north palm beach, florida. you you think a divided government better, why? caller: a little bit of looking back here. there used to be the blue dog democrats and that was a group of fiscally conservative democrats. and as we went in there's always talk that the republicans will not work with the president. or with the democratic congress. the reason is is they went so far shooting to the left that that's not even the democratic party, i believe, anymore. as far as them not working with the president, i'm glad that they did lose their seats in the house. now those blue dog democrats are thrown out and those are the same people that were working in
the party. but i think what we need to do is just bring back to the country a good sense of american history, why we're one country, and maybe that way we can kind of work together. back to your question is a divided government good? sure. when you have a group go sow far swinging out to -- so far swinging out to where it's almost socialism, they have to be reined in. that's what we did. host: does the idea of a divided government, is that going to play a role at all in how you cast your ballot in november? caller: no. it probably won't. not in that respect. but i am glad that the good horse sense of the american people do from time to time wake up and see what's taking place with their country. in that respect, no. it really wouldn't. i'm more for a limited-type government intrusion. i'll be voting for donald trump and probably straight republican. i think they can be held to a higher standard only because
with a president like trump, at least i think the congress would keep him at bay. i do believe when we have a democratic president, they just seem to shrug off any kind of role in their minds the means -- in other words, the ends justify the means. that's not the way -- host: ok. we said -- as we said earlier for democrats to retake the house they would need to net 30 seats. yesterday house minority leader nancy pelosi spoke about whether she thinks a wave, democratic wave, could retake the house. she says it depends on hillary clinton's margins. >> you make your own waves. that's what we're doing. we have the candidates. we have the enthusiasm. we have -- outraised in terms of resources, the republicans over and over again. and i feel very confident that
the makings of a wave are there. i agree with steny, you don't know this far in advance. we didn't. nobody thought we were going to win at this point in 2006. and it turned into a wave. it turned into a wave in 2010, much closer to the time. it's like saying you see a wave. we're not even at the beach. let us take this thing down the road. we'll see where it is. i think we're all in agreement, including steny, that we're going to win very many seats. and some of it, as he says, depends on how big the margin is for hillary clinton. that makes a big difference in a presidential election year. host: james is calling in from virginia beach, virginia. you're undecided on the issue of divided government. why? caller: the simple reason is because it isn't working. the divided government isn't working. the congress and the senate can't come together.
the days of tip o'neill and the republican party working with the senate and working with the president are long since gone. now we're mired in one issue that one after another issue that really dogged down everything. for example, the affordable care act. how many times does it have to be reappealed, revisitted, how much money is the federal government wasting in the congress and the senate and the president wasting time and time again on the same issue over and over again. that's just one issue. unfortunately there is no point solidity between the party. the senate unfortunately can't see what the congress is doing. there is nobody there to intervening between both parties to make sure that they are all
equal. they want to come together. the days of coming together are long since gone. we're so mired in just one obstructive thing after another. t's not working. as a united states citizen, i'm very, very concerned about where we're going within the next eight years, whoever the president becomes. host: next we have joe. joe is calling in from staten island, new york. you're undecided as to whether divided government can work. tell us why. caller: because the way i look at it is the government is not divided but compromise. the compromise government can't work. it can't represent the people. it's only going to feed -- it's only existing to serve itself. so what happens is we the people, we're living under a state of anarchy right now. those governing officials, they are not looking out for our interests. where do we go as a country? we'll have to get along first. and accept the fact we have no
governing boddy. they look good on tv but they are basically there for appearance only. we have to somehow put our government back together. ost: we have 435 folks who are elected to go to these congressional offices. you think none of them at all have the public interest in mind? all the bills and legislations that's considered? caller: they cafpblet it's not possible. -- can't. it's not possible. those chambers were compromised well before they got there. they were compromised before we were even born. we really are in a state of anarchy right now. thank god we're getting along. we're going to have to rebuild this government. host: next we have ralph calling in from new york. you favor a divided government, ralph. why is that? caller: i believe in a two-party system and i believe it can work. i believe because of in today's
presidential campaign, actually, realization tant that the system like on the democrat and republican side is that people are angry that we ave no vote. realizing you have delegates, superdelegate, in the few tear people will call out the government. so a divided system is good. unfortunately, you can't try to have government work when you're not working together. so to do a secret iran deal around everybody's back and not incorporating our congress. this is how it should have worked. don't just push something through obamacare. or republicans, whatever they want. gun control. they are going to have to sit down with you because i think the people will call them out.
i firmly believe in the two-party system will change. host: ok. up next we have carolyn. rolyn's calling in from port orford, oregon. you like a divided government. why? caller: if we don't have a divided government, we have a government that one party controls. and when you you have control by one party, then they push through agendas and stuff that the people doesn't want. host: carolyn, let me ask you this, do you think it makes a difference which party is in the white house as opposed to which party is in control of congress? caller: it doesn't matter who is in the white house. it's congress. if congress was all republican, we would have a really horrible time right now. host: congress is all republican right now. congress is in control of republicans right now. caller: that's what i'm saying. and nothing is getting done.
if the house was democratic and the senate was republican, they would have to work together to get anything done. that would mean they would have to work together. what they are doing now is the republicans are just going roughshod over everything. and that is why we need a divided. we keep putting the same people back in. mitch mcconnell when he said he was going to do everything against obama, well, that told me you don't care about our country. host: speaking of control of the senate as well as the house. in today's "washington post" it takes a look at the likelihood of democrats reclaiming either the senate or the house. and it says that senate majority leader mitch mcconnell with just three seats to spare to maintain the g.o.p.'s hold on the chamber. pointed to seven race that is
are going to be down to the wire. mostly across the midwest. he characterized those races as knockdown, drag out, sort of like a knife fight in a phone booth. he told reporters at a news conference after congress concluded yesterday. house minority whip, steny hoyer, on the house side, democrat, said he predicted, quote, significant gains of about 20 additional seats. of course even if that is true 20 seats won't be enough. democrats would need 30 seats to retake the house in the races coming up in the election in november. up next we have julia from albany, california. julia, you are undecided about the division of government. tell us why. caller: i used to be very much in support of our government and the way it was set up. except that now i just think there's too few people in power and they have their own agendas.
and i fear if we don't have a division that it will become a dictatorship. and very limited minds will control the people. i'm uncertain as to what can happen here except that i think we have to have a radical change. host: julia, what do you think about third party votes? we have third party candidates for president as well as independents and third party folks who run for congress sometimes. some independents in congress. do you think there should be more of that? caller: yeah. i'd like to see more of that. i think that at least we could get some other ideas. but none of what we're doing is working. i think we need radical change in our structure of government. even independent is not enough because honestly we can't get enough in there. 'm definitely for term limits. our congress is dated. it's not working.
it's ineffective. it doesn't represent the people. i agree older congresspeople are not representing the popular vote. our whole system is broken. host: ok. up next we have richard. richard's calling in there use tiss, florida. you prefer -- uies, florida. you prefer guided government. caller: i do. the founders very wisely gave us. and i think that what we have done in the meantime is we added branch of government which is the lobbyists. if we got rid of the lobbyists which is synonymous with bribery, we would straighten out a lot of problems we have. host: richard, i was going ask the founders set up a divided government system. the founders set up a system where voters can choose who has the executive and white house
and who has the legislative. but it allows for that to all be one party. do you think that should be something that a voter should take into account in november? caller: absolutely. we should have a balance. we need the checks and balances. that's why the founders gave us that. host: next we have jeffrey. jeffrey is calling in from olympia field, illinois. jeffrey, you prefer one party rule over both, one party control over both the white house and the congress. is there a particular party that you prefer? caller: i would prefer for them to actually have the american party. when i think about our government system, i think about it in terms of relationship to school board governance. school board governance it's really not party lines. people come for the best interest of all the stakeholders. and it's not designed to be
divisive. it's designed to unite them around a common unity of purpose. and the common unity of purpose is are the children. number one, and then their stakeholders secondly. so those people come to do the best thing for kids. the problem that we have with our system as it is structured right now. republicans nor democrats come to do the best thing for all americans. they come with an agenda. they come with a constituency. they come in with that approach. that approach is destructive. host: what's the solution then? caller: the solution is for americans to -- for all of us to find a way to never get ourselves to one party, to something very similar to the purest governance system where we have people who come with the interest of america. it's not going to be a two-party system. it's not going to be a three-partycies tefment it's going to be an american party
system where people are elected who have the best interest for this country and maybe for their local governs. something the local governs level, i don't have a problem w. but i think we need to migrate to where people are looking at hat is best for this contry. host: next we have justice from fort lauderdale, florida. what do you think about divided government? i have been listening to callers and so concerned. i'm just saying that there needs to be radical changes based on how things are right now. and the fact of the matter is what has been happening over the last couple years is that there has not been any compromise. people not compromise any more. people are taking party lines. i'm saying that's where the issue s people need to look at america as one america. and not looking at it as republicans and democrats. because at the end of the day
who suffers are people. and the most important thing in any nation, most important resources of any nation, is its people. and therefore when you have this division going on, it doesn't only hurt the economy but also hurt the people. host: justice, how do you think you can stop this -- you prefer divided government. we have that now. but we still see this gridlock. caller: that's what i'm saying. that's what i point earlier. what i'm saying there needs to be compromise. instead of taking party lines, people need to compromise. i don't like what you have presented. you don't like what i have presented. however, let us look and see how we can meet each other halfway. host: ok. next we have dominick. calling in from new york. you prefer divided government as well. tell us why. caller: hi. i remember when the gasoline went up from 98 cents a gallon to $4.49 a gallon in new york.
my wife works 65 miles away from the house. they were debating at the house. and the republican got up and says, we can't put gas in the cars. people can't go to work. and they were debating monkey bites. do this day they never debated it. with the obamacare, 2100 pages, we got to pass it before we -- pass it right away. everything was a rush, rush, rush. there was just a one-way street. the illegal immigrants coming in. everybody was complaining about it. no one did anything. i heard hillary clinton talk the other day that donald trump wants to deport 16 million illegal immigrants. god forbid she becomes president she's bring another 16 million in. i'm a construction worker. we can't get work. it has to be divided. they have to sit down and they have to negotiate. they can't be a one-way street where we push everything in and nothing gets done.
host: next we have michael. michael is calling in from land-o-lakes, florida. you prefer a divided government? caller: i do prefer a divided government. but i prefer a divided government because it doesn't work. and what i mean by that is it won't work unless people compromise. or unless there is overwhelming support. for one position or another. host: ok. up next we have cathy. kathy is calling in from st. martinsville, louisiana. you, too, prefer divided government. can you tell us why? caller: i do prefer divided government because the government is supposed to be representative of the people, by the people, and for the people. and fortunately that's not the way things are working these days. we have technology that could help us and have the people be more involved.
oting oun ourself. host: ok. caller: only way that we can work it out is if it was divide -- it is divided. host: up next is willie from louisiana. in the few seconds we have left, can you tell us why? caller: yes, ma'am. the reason i said it should be a divided government so we get a chance to see that america can come together and do something for change in its history. thank you. host: that's it for today's washington jurem. -- journal. next live to the national press club where they are hosting a discussion on presidential transitions and the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> good morning, i think we saw a few people filing in. i want to thank everyone for filing out today. my name is jamie, the chairman of the newsmaker committee here at the national press club. and on behalf of our president, thomas burr, and the 3,000 members of the national press club, i want to thank everyone who braved metro, road closings
and construction here at the press club for coming out today. and i think one of the reasons we have such a good crowd is to talk about presidential transition because people hope there is light at the end of e tunnel after this long campaign. but at the same time, i've learned that sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a locomotive campaign. but at the same coming at you. and so today what we're going to do is we're going to talk about sort of that tunnel, what's going on right now in terms of presidential transition and what needs to be done to get us to noon on inauguration day. we have a really great panel for this discussion. so with us today, we have clay johnston, who served as the deputy director for o.m.b. in the bush white house, beginning in 2003. and before that he was assistant to the assistant to the president and responsible for over 4,000 presidential
appointments. e also have thomas, more commonly known as mack mclarty, who served in president clinton's chief of staff. in that role he experienced the early years of presidential administration firsthand. and max stier who is the president and c.e.o. of the partnership for public service. and through the partnership, he's hosted transition conferences in three election cycles and has played an active role in planning for this transition. we want to allow time for each of our speakers to speak and have about 20 or 30 minutes for questions afterwards. so without any further ado, why don't i turn it over to max and he will be followed by the other speakers. thank you. max: thank you very much, jamie. it's a pleasure to be here. thank you to the extraordinary panelists. mack and clay, who are part of the advisory board of the
presidential transition and are both themselves incredible public servants and really the vanguard of -- and evangelist around effective transition planning and have done extraordinary work. as jamie said, i'm the president for partnership for public service. we are a norn partisan organization trying to help the federal government work more effectively. we do lots of things including the best places to work rankings in the federal government. but we came to the notion about nine years ago that a source point for dysfunction in the government was the presidential transition. again, there's an irony here because we all learn as children the peaceful transfer of power is one of the great things about our country. you're told it's peaceful but no one tells you it's ugly. ugly, it's a phenomenal operation. you think about a $4 trillion organization with four million people, hundreds of operating units. and the typical transition has involved at best some, you
know, substantial activity between the election and the inauguration which is 70-some-odd days, not enough to take over a tiny company, nonetheless the most critical institution in the planet, in the world. so when we began this work about nine years ago, taking a look at what needed to change and that included both legislativively as well as operationally. -- legislatively as well as operationally. it became more imperative when you think about the world we live in today post-9/11. it's not only a complicated operation, it's not only vital for presidential candidates to be thinking about this because it necessaryanses whether -- it sets the groundwork as to whether they can fulfill the promises they're making on the campaign trail but it's also a national security imperative. it's a moment of maximum weakness for our country. and james clapper had some chilling comments he made a couple weeks ago how in his 53
years doing intelligence work he's never seen a world scarier. he, likewise, presented a point that transition is that point of maximum vulnerability. what's attractive, though, about this topic there are things that can be done about it. it's not one of those things you have to look at it and say, oh, my god, it's horrible, and think nothing can be done. in fact, a lot is being done in a very, very important way. it begins with changing the rules of the road, and there are three laws that have been passed over the course of the last six years. the first of which very importantly moved the data support from after the election to after the convention for transition support. and the reason why that was so essential is that one of the things that prevented earlier campaign from focusing intensely on transition planning was the political risk that they saw in doing so. they were concerned about being view as presumpt with us. job number one, obviously, is to win in a campaign. you are not going to do anything at all that might get in the way of it.
this legislation i think really opened the floodgates. and you saw four years ago with the readiness project a phenomenal preparation, better than anything happened before up until the point of the election and no further and you're seeing today, you know, both campaigns operating at a level of intensity that fundamentally has not existed previously. so that's a huge improvement. there is still lots of room for improvement to go here, and i just want to focus on one comment before turning it over to the experts on either side here. and that is a goal. so one issue really is to get the campaigns to set up a transition apparatus earlier to start earlier because if you have 70-some-odd days you can't be ready and you need more so you increase the runway. the second piece -- and this is something i bet we hear from clay which is a very, very compelling speaker on this -- it's about setting the right goals. one of the goals ought to be to have your leadership team in place in real time. and one of the extraordinary things about our system is that
we have a very large cohort of new political appointees that come in. 4,000 people. i would add if you look across the globe at any democracy, there ain't nothing like it. that's a in my view an overly large number. in my view it's a vestige of the spoil system and ought to be changed. that's a longer term issue. it's a very important requirement for the new team coming in to be prepared for. of those 4,000, 1,100 of them have to be senate confirmed and approximately 400 or so of those are really the fundamental leaders of the government. our proposition is the new teams coming in ought to make sure they're getting in, not just a few people by inauguration, but bluntly their core leadership team, the top 100 by the inauguration and that 400-plus group by the august recess. we believe it's doable if you set that as your goal and if you actually work with the senate in order to make that happen. so when we look at what ought to be occurring here and what
is feasible, one of the things we would propose, both of the transition teams ought to be setting that as their goal. the senate ought to be cooperating to make that happen. there are some tactical things that would enable that to occur. an example is to imagine bringing in leadership teams at the front end rather than just the leader of the agency. so, again, you look at the data, it's fascinating. on average it's over two months between when the first person comes into an agency, the secretary, usually, or head of the agency, and the second person. you know, dial back to 2009, worst, you know, economic crisis we've seen in this country since the depression and what did you have? you had tim geithner home alone. he came in the beginning of february. next person in treasury was may. what happened at d.o.d., they brought in a slate of people at the front end. that slating is something that ought to occur across the government. another aspect of this is the process itself is too hard, too difficult and doesn't need to be. an example of that, of those 1,100 senate confirmed positions, every single one of
them requires a top secret s.c.i. clearance. what means is the robust, most intensive investigation of each of those individuals. when you look at who those people are, you realize that's silly. you shouldn't have to have that level of clearance, that level of background check for someone who may be serving in a part-time commission on student scholarships like the mo udall scholarship fund. we have a system that folks have not focused enough on that can get better. it is doable and we need to see it happen. so i want to stop so i can get the wisdom from clay and from mack. we should note also in the audience is josh who has incredible experience on this subject. i'm looking forward to the conversation. o thank you very much. clay: i'm clay johnston. i was also in addition to the positions i had in the brucks, i was the -- bush administration, i was planner
and executive of the bush transition whereas now causing the candidates to have 200, 300 people work on transition matters. with president bush 43, at this point in the election cycle you had one person working on transition. [laughter] clay: let's just say the bar was set very low and i think we got over it even though we didn't have the time. max's ighted about remarks because i counted he used the word goal 21 times. if he had given these remarks a year ago he would have hardly heard the word goal. you hurd of one trick postseasonies. i am the goal man. if you talk about we need goals, what are the desired outcomes, that's me. every president -- candidate for president is promising to be a very effective leader. but there comes a point in time where the president --
presidential candidate has to start figuring out what does that mean to be an effective leader and our contention is and the amount of attention given to this is the most important thing a president can do is to put his or her team on the field with him or her at a point in time where he can be very -- he or she can be very effective at leading this country as promised and that means not as soon as you can get to it but that means like right away. ke 12 01 on january 20 -- 12:01 on january 20. as max talked about, the complexity of our world, the challenges, the opportunities we face, domestically and internationally, are so astounding that we need to be assured, we, the american people, we deserve to have assurance that our president is going to be capable of leading whatever needs to be led the minute he or she gets sworn in. historically what preparing to govern has meant, say, the last
30, 40 years, is about three or four weeks in a new administration would have gotten through the senate, been able to nominate and get through the senate, confirmed 30, 35, 38, 41, 29, some number like that of senate confirmed positions. recess by the august of the first year, about 225-plus or minus. why is it always so consistent? the reason it's so consistent is because no administration has been challenged, including ours, bush 43, to set a goal. how many people are you trying to put in place around you, in your team to be able to get a lot of things done by when? how many by when? the reason it intends to be the same in every administration is the size of the personnel operation in the transition and in the white house has always tended to be exactly the same size as the previous
administrations. every administration is reluctant to spend more on white house staff than their predecessor because they don't want to be blamed for or accused of being big spenders. so they say, ok, president's personnel had this many people. that's home people you get. how many people can that group put through the senate and get in position? the same number of people the last administration did. not until ever has administration said i want to t 100 people in place by february 15, march 1. and i want to have 350 or 400 people in place by the august recess. and then figure out -- and the reason is because that's how many important positions, as max mentioned. they look at the list and they go down and rank it. this is important, this is important. it's 375. not 225. or look at the 225. what jobs are not filled?
oh, my gosh. this is not filled? this is not filled? thank goodness nothing happened here. it's not 225. it's 375, plus or minus. it's not 30 or 40. it's 100. how do you do that? you set the goal and march -- figure out what you need to do to accomplish that goal. it's not only a body and a job, senate confirmed. it's a body and a job prepared to do really good work. really well briefed. first off, really well qualified. that's a separate issue. and what might be a really well qualified person for one administration may not be a really well qualified for one person. it's not cookie cutter. everyone that is secretary needs to be this kind of person. it needs to be administration specific. then the people have to be briefed on what's going on in the agency, what's going on in the world. one of the big challenges in any transition and the responsibility falls on the outgoing administration is to brief the incoming administration on all the threats in the world. all the health threats.
all the war threats. all the hacking threats. all the whatever so new people coming in are aware of the possible bad things are. so it's people in place well qualified and well briefed. that's the goal. it doesn't always happen. so you set the goal. what is required to make that happen? you have to do a tremendous amount of work in the transition. it's -- there are no brain surgeries performed in any transition. it's very straightforward things but thousands of them and you on citizensively have 73 days i guess this time to get all this stuff done. you can't do all these things done with 375 people or 100 in the first two, three, four weeks. so what do you do? you have to expand the capacity to do the work. you have to have more people working on it than typically worked on it and you have to have more time devoted to it
than typically devoted to it. so you need to begin the transition planning sooner. you can't wait to see if you're the president-elect. you have to assume that you will be, and you have to be chucking your heart and remember you are really committed to being an effective leader. today that means minute one of the administration so you have to begin early. they typically begin in april and may. typically by that point in time there ought to be hundreds of people working on transition matters, primarily in the personnel arena. that's what i understand is happening. that's what the romney people did. that's what needs to happen. you expand the capacity by devoting more time to it and more people instead of five or six special assistants to the president, personnel, because that's how many our predecessor had, for the first nine months you need 10, 12 and the
associated staff related to that. then after the fall of the first year, fall after the august recess, you don't need that many more because you got 400 and you can hit more of a maintenance -- not maintenance but you got the really key people in place. so the goal comes first. the commitment to reach the goal is first. the commitment to being a really, really effective leader as soon as it's likely that effective leadership will be called for means that's the goal and everything focuses on that. and so it's been fabulous to watch this evolve over the last -- you said 11 years? nine years. obama and mccain got the message and they both devoted more people to it than ever before. the romney people did fantastic thing. it's sort of the poster child for it. and the candidates this year have done the same thing. it's absolutely what needs to be expected. it's what -- and the press has a responsibility, i think it's a great thing to cover, if i
say so myself, nonpress person. easy for me to say for you all, but you can help raise the expectation. it should be what our -- any new president is committed to do, to be prepared to govern from the get-go, because so many things not on the playbook to rear their ugly head or pretty head by january 20 or january 21 but they are highly likely to do so. so that's my elab ration on max's comment. we'll turn this over to mack. -- elab ration on max's comment. we'll turn this over to mack. this is not only the cabinet and subcabinet. this is in the white house. i understand, my case it was, the chief of staff drives the staffing of the white house. they say, well, let's do the cabinet first and white house second. if there's nobody in the cabinet then nobody -- there's nobody there to work with the cabinet and subcabinet. so they have to be done in
concert together. it's white house and cabinet. the second thing is we talk about what the administration has to do. there's also a program going on, aggressive program, fascinating to watch where the agencies are preparing, the career staff, not the outgoing staff but career staff are preparing their agencies to receive their new bosses. and guess what, they're highly motivated to do this. who do you want to be really impressed when they first come in? your new boss. so it's fascinating to see them working on this because they come up with fabulous ideas about how to best brief their new people, get then them onboard. let me turn it over to mack mclarty. mack: thank you. jamie, thanks for organizing and hosting us today. i'm delighted to be with you. i always enjoy working with clay johnston who is a friend and someone whom i respect. and i'm glad this is a bipartisan effort. clay and i have traveled in this venue for a number of years working on presidential
transitions and trying to streamline the process. in that regard, i don't think anyone has done more, any organization, than to lift the profile and the importance of the transition process than max stier and the center for the presidential transition. max, thank you and your staff for such great work. all of you are familiar with the old saw, so much to do and just not enough time to do it. and that probably sums up and reflects how most of us or any of you would feel during a transition of less than 80 days to make this shift, this transition and get a government in place. as max noted, it is a critical period. it is a hallmark of any working democracy, including our own. is a peaceful transition of power, but to date it's been kind of a magical process
somewhat behind a curtain, not in a secretive way but just because the nature of transition and some of the focus goes to kind of the change and ups and downs and who's going to be in the cabinet and so forth. i think a lot of that has changed in the past decade, which i'll make a comments about a little bit later. i think clay hit it just right in terms of being the goal man. i think you do need to have very specific objectives that are put forward. so i would try to make a couple of key points here as we move toward our program and get to your questions. first of all, the key point in my mind in a transition is the pivot from the campaign, which e are currently in, to governing. that is the key shift in this less than 80-day period, and that's what the next president
of the united states and his or er team needs to focus on, and that is a pretty difficult shift to make after working so hard to get elected. secondly, it is a monumental task, as max noted and i can say from a business side, if you think about it, as i speak to business groups, what if you had less than 80 days to organize a company with 4,000 people that you needed to get in place, senate confirmed, as clay noted, $4 trillion budget, two million civilian employees -- a tremendously diverse portfolio? that even makes the most fearless, confident and competent c.e.o.'s heads spin a
bit. that is a monumental undertaking. hand writin note back saying the screwballs advising you are not giving good advice or something to that effect. but since that time, i think we have seen, and josh can speak to this, a readiness, a receptivity of feeling of patriotism, responsibility duty on the prior administration to work with the incoming administration even if they are of another party. and probably the best transition taken place is the
bush 43 transition to the obama administration and that is a good example. so there's not been a lack of good will or seriousness of purpose. what there has been a lack of is kind of order, definition and formality in the transition process and that's what max and his team and the center is working diligently to really help frame that particularly with the dramatic changes, dramatic changes that have taken place since 1992 in the clinton transition, but even in the last 10 years. by that i think the two key alluded to ax them, the biggest shift in transition is 9/11. 9/11 clearly changed the psyche of our country and our people. and with that tragic event really came the impact on
transitions that was not the case in the early 1990's and beyond. and that was there was an understandable feeling on almost every presidential candidate, certainly on the part of governor clinton, that if you started the transition too early it was viewed as certainly off-key, arrogant, measuring the proverbial grapes. so every presidential candidate had a natural tendency to be very careful in putting too many resources and focus on a transition. 9/11 changed that. but yet anyone who has sat through a security briefing, as i was privileged to do, the night before a president is sworn in and the head of the joint chiefs of staff, in our case, general colin powell talks about the passing of the football and the commander in chief, it's the most sacred
thing of the president. it's the safety and security of the american people. and that goes right to the essence of a smooth transition, particularly in this day and time. you got to be ready minute one, and the obama administration, as martha kumar, who has written about this subject and max and others know, there was actually a potential terrorist threat when president obama went to his inaugural and you had a close coordination between the bush administration and the obama administration. but taken apart from that, you also had, as, again, max alluded to, the 2008 financial crisis. and i think it's fair to say without a transition and working together between secretary paulsen, tim geithner, who had been head of the new york fed, and chairman bernanke, we could have faced and would have faced -- i am certain we would have faced much more, much more dire circumstances which were difficult enough.
second key point, technologies changed. don't have to tell any of you that the way you conduct your business and affairs and write has changed. so we need to take advantage of that and that can help streamline the process, as clay has talked about. thirdly, you now have federal funding. that indeed in itself validates and formalizes the transition process. the next key point, you got to get a government in place to move forward. ny president has to do that. the appointments process -- and no one understands it more than clay johnston does -- that's key to getting your appointments, your team in place. now, my experience was in the clinton administration that senator trent lott, who was head on confirmation, was quite cooperative. we actually got our cabinet in place i believe at that time more promptly than any other administration had done in modern times. we had one exception with the
attorney general appointment, and usually if you look back, there has been kind of one problem or one issue with a cabinet nominee. in our case it was an important position. but that's essential. of course, you can just say. -- see -- >> i am not sure what you said. mack: i thought i was clear. well, siri was part of the technology i was talking about. [laughter] mack: give me my notes, max. no, that's it. that's it. i think i -- i think i've sufficiently regrouped but i'm not sure. that's all right. i think clay also noted the other point. you do have to simultaneously appoint the cabinet and the white house. and in our case, because we did start late, because what i just referred to, i think we really did a good job of pointing the cabinet, which proved to be a
great asset for our administration, richard newsatt talked about the clinton cabinet being the most effective and loyal and so forth but we were a little slow getting our white house staff in place and that's a mistake i think -- or lesson learned that is certainly important for future administrations. i will say that government employees that are already in place just do a remarkable job of the stability and transition f power. and the president has to set his priorities. the first 100 days are important. the first year is important. finally, i would say you have a number of stakeholders in a transition process and they all must be attended to. you start with members of congress. always had a waterford crystal on my desk to prove to any member of congress that came in it was a dome with a capitol. he or she was the most important person that i had seen that particular day.
but that's essential. second, your supporters. those are the people that got you elected. you want to show respect for them and appreciation. but i would also suggest, as jeff greenfield recently commented, it's pretty important to show your nonsupporters, the people that didn't vote for you, that they're important too if you're going to unify the country and govern. 1/3ly, there's all of you, the press. you're expected -- you're expecting to be engaged in a presidential transition in the first 100 days. that's critical. and then there's foreign leaders, because a new president is stepping on the world stage -- in governor clinton's case -- kind of for the first time. that's critical. then there's the governors which i think increasingly play an important role in our governance, our country, so forth, and max and i talked about when we engage with the
national governors association, quite interested in the transition. and then there's the washington, what i call, establishment, for lack of a better way to refer to it. and it's a myriad of organizations. not just industry and business, but myriad of organizations that have their own specific focus and agenda that have to be engaged during the transition and during the first 100 days. again, the key point i want to try to make, transition is a time from pivotting from campaigning to governing. that's the shift that must be made. so i think to sum up, it's an important and critical time for our democracy for the president, the country, indeed the world. most presidencies are judged at the end of the day with peace, which i would say now is peace and security in this day and time and prosperity. and i think a transition is
absolutely crucial to achieving those two major goals and, again, i really think the senate is trying to raise the profile of the transition process. jamie, with that i'll turn it over to you for questions. jamie: so we're going to open up the floor for questions. and when i call on you, please identify your name and your news organization. i want to point out that today's a professional development day for schools here in d.c. so i recruited my son, joey, here to pass around the microphone. so when i recognize you, joey will hand you the mike. so let's open it up for questions here. >> i'm charlie clark with government executive. the current transition teams to varying extent are fundraising rough wealthy donors and appointing industry reps to the transition team.
i'm wondering, what are some of the ethics surrounding that? do the new laws address that or does it go by tradition? max: so the transition activity, as is the campaign activity, is private activity that transitions have a separate organizing vehicle of 501-c-4 that needs to be set up. the law basically requires that in order to get the government support you have to abide by a limit of $5,000 by any individual. the truth of the matter is the amount of money you're talking about in transitioning planning is tiny relative to what you see in campaigns. so all in you're talking about maybe, you know, $10 million, $12 million, $13 million. it is true typically the campaigns will raise that money from the donors that have already maxed out and that's
the easiest place for them to go to. as a practical matter, though, they are not talking about huge sums of money. in terms of the engagement side, there are a lot of volumes that participate and, -- volunteers that participate and transition teams can tell who can and who can't participate. it is a scramble. i mean, there's more to be done that possibly can be done and engauging a broader set of folks is important at the same time there's a high degree of interest in secrecy and the process. i think the fact that these conversations are going on now will help, but by and large, there haven't been robust pre election transitional operations until very, very recently so you haven't seen a lot of activity in that respect. one thing i forgot to mention, and i can't resist but do this real quick is you can see a guide book on transition planning for any of those here who want to understand what exactly goes into transitions. this is version 1.0. it's all on our website. christine simmons, who is back there, is responsible for this and all of the transition stuff
we're doing here. but that will give you a set of timelines, the sorts of things happening inside the transition. jamie: yes, sir. >> dave with l.r.p. publications. i was wondering, obviously the focus here is on sort of top leadership, both political and career. and yet if you look at things like the scandal at the v.a., what often determines a success or failure of the administration of what the people on the ground do, the front line people. and i was just wondering, are there things that the career people at the top can do, not just to get ready for new political people, but also to sort of work down with career staff to get them prepared for new administration? clay: again, what i experienced in 2008 was we identified very clearly for the career staff
what we knott the definition of success was for being -- what we thought the definition of success was for the new leadership group in v.a., for instance. and that was to provide for a successful exit by the current group and the successful entry and they would be briefed and further and so on. they would identify what -- for the new political people what they consider to be the high priorities and the hot and spicy items and the opportunities and the critical decisions on this date and this date. the coinling administration sends industry review teams in and there is a tendency -- an aside comment -- there is a tendency to create a document about yea thick about everything you want to know about d.o.d. and that ends up being a nice little doorstop. anything under 20 pages or so tends to get opened and used d so the focus for these are
are there critical matters that needs to be tended to in the first 90 to 120 days in the minds of the new administration? so the incoming group has, from the career standpoint, from their bosses these two things. if something that the rank and file is doing in the v.a. is a hot issue, then it's on the to do list as a high priority. so it's generally focused on and identified in that fashion. max: i think it's a great question and the reality is while there are 4,000 political appointees, there are two million civil servants, as mack said. and most come in thinking they can recreate a command and control system with the 4,000 than coming in rather the work force that's already there. and mack did a phenomenal job laying out the complexity of the stakeholders you have to deal than
the with. one of the most important are the career work force themselves. anyone going into any organization, anybody who's in the private sector will understand that's a vital function that they have to do. and by and large, it's overlooked. there are some very easy things that has to start. one is something clay said. you have to pick people that understand leading an organization means managing people and see that as a priority. that frankly doesn't happen often. they have to be prepared, operating in the government the same in all respects as operating a business. it's who you pick and how you prepare them. new administration is focused on the picking. they don't always get that right, and i'm being generous there. they often don't focus at all on the preparation side. so that's fundamental. there are tools now that exist that didn't exist previously. for those unfamiliar with it, there is a survey requirement that every agency has to take a survey, employee viewpoint survafmente we put our best places to ranking from that. the president will say, i want the most engaged work force and we should beat the private sector. right now that's not the case.
you have high commitment from the federal work force. there is concern about the information they're getting. that's something the president ought to hold their leadership accountable for. we had a set of rules and systems that were largely designed in 1949 to manage the career work force. the new president should say, that's ridiculous. it's a different world, whether technology, risk, and civil service reform ought to be the top priorities. there are four, five things the new president can do coming. they could mean with the senior executive service. 4,000 political appointees. 7,000 career executives and then the two million career general work force. anyone thinking about an organization would understand those 7,000 need to be brought together, need to be engaged and they need to be empowered to actually fulfill the agenda of the new president. meeting them in the very beginning, something that president bush did would be vital to meeting alone is not enough. they have to be brought to focus on in an enterprisewide agenda. but the key point here in my
view is that a new president has to understand to be successful they need to understand that one of the critical functions of their job is to actually run and lead an effective federal government and that means run an effective ederal work force. mack: i noted in our comments, we certainly found, and i think that continues to be the case, a reservoir, a reservoir of dedicated and capable people within the federal work force that were ready to be supportive of the new president and his -- in our case, his agenda. so that is a resource to be tapped to engaged, managed, directed and led, but it really is the key point and it's really one of the hallmarks of the passing of power. i think going back just very quickly, you made an excellent point. i won't get on the soapbox about campaign finance reform,
even though that's a hot button issue within our country, but i think any contributions on a transition, despite the fact they're modest, should be transparent. i think a probably word than secretive is discretion. handling a transition is perfectly important. ecretive is maybe not. jamie: let's go right back here first. >> todd with "the dallas morning news." i had a question about enthusiasm. i'm wondering if you -- how concerned you are with when the transition is from one party to the other that it becomes less enthusiastic on, you know, the outgoing administration? also, really about the candidates' teams themselves if there's maybe a tipping point in the election the last few weeks, you can see the writing on the wall that we're on the
losing side, why are we going through these motions? how do you combat that or is that not a problem? >> todd, that's a good question. i would certainly reiterate that despite kind of this cynical environment maybe that we feel is the case in government and our politics, i think the hallmark of transition in the last 30 years has been a true and sincere engagement even if there was a transition from one party to the other. obviously bill clinton came in after 12 years of republicans being in the white house. so that's about as stark as example or specific as example you can cite. mack: but our cooperation from jim baker, from andy carr and many others, we could not have asked for better. i do think the process now is really encouraged to be starting much earlier, which is better, more formal.
federal funding, all of that supports a much stronger, better transition. as far as the really feeling of responsibility -- patriotism is really probably not too strong a word. we could not have asked for a better engagement. i think the same, clay, went from president bush 43 to president obama. i exact the same to pe poamith b it aoturru wo ed
uled assw notin. it's impossible to believe that everything that will get done ought to get done but the question is, are we doing a ton better and are we getting better and better? our proposition is we at least need a learning system that everything up until now has been groundhog's day. these operations have started from scratch. they have not had access to the prior art, and that's not the way we ought to be running, you
know, the united states government. jamie: thomas in the back. >> i'm thomas. during the transition from campaigns to government, how do you handle -- what is the process of handling national security, intelligence and the relations with the rest of the world? mack: important question for sure. maybe more so than in today's environment. my understanding and experience suggests, number one, i think both presidential candidates began receiving national security briefings after they're nominated. o that's the first start, from those qualified and involved in the government.
they have access to information they otherwise would not have had earlier in the campaigns. that's number one. i think this ain, cooperation and kind of seamless is what we're going for here. i think a formal transition can help that. and has helped it in the past. i think it will only get better. number three, i think each of the candidates has to recognize the critical nature of the issues that you raise and how important it is to have -- to have an understanding of those and particularly day one when you come in the white house. in governor clinton's case, his national security advisors basically were tony and sandy and nancy during the campaign. all three of those then went to the national security council immediately upon his election so there was a seamless transition in terms of his campaign to his advisors on foreign policy. and that's -- that worked, i
think, pretty well. those are the three or four aspects to answer your question. amie: how about over here? >> brandy. i write for political.com. memo to obama aides don't trump or clinton on your way out. can you talk about the problems that arose in the 2001 transition and what came about from it? >> do you mean when they took some keys out of -- clay: i think that was determined to be some disgruntled interns. it was not an organized thing. it was those crazy college kids. [laughter] clay: so, you know, go figure. hat will a college kid do?
mack: i was not there in the last 2 1/2 years so i didn't have firsthand knowledge or engagement and i'm glad i didn't have the responsibility looking back. i think clay has got it right. i think, however, as i noted, transition generally have a good spirit about them. i think the administration, it's pretty natural to feel just a touch overconfident and that has usually proven not to be the wisest feeling to have after the election. you make a good point about the transition and the new office going into office. jamie: how about right here up front? >> i'm frank lockwood with the arkansas democrat gazette. you talk about all the work that goes on for months and months and months. you do it -- you lose. what happens to the stuff? does it get thrown away, archived? max: so in the past what
happened to it, it either went in the garage or behind a desk, in a box, whatever it might be. the answer, it's not typically been collected or accessible to anybody else. that's why you give me an opportunity for the second time, i can show this. so the basic point is that's what -- we're trying to create a -- we're trying to create that learning system. so if you go to our website, either the partnership for public service's white house or the center for presidential transition, you'll find access to the romney documents, the obama documents. our goal is then to make sure this material going forward is available to the next team that comes in so they can get better and better on it. it is a fundamental issue. i do want to turn quickly to the outgoing as well. we already heard and we know it's true the bush to obama was the best ever. the obama administration has committed to do even better than that. i think there are ways in which they're working on that. one of the ways clay i think
talked about was the doorstops and the notion that oftentimes what's happened is agencies are with all good intent producing a lot of material that ultimately doesn't meet the needs of the customer, the incoming transition team. what we're seeing now is an attempt to have a meeting of the minds, to understand for the agency people coming in and to do a common format, as an example. so think about it, historically there's been hundreds of different formats. that alone is a barf huge confidence. again, we're seeing more and more progress. in the world we have today we need it. jamie: in the middle right there. >> hi. sarah with wtol toledo. thank you. i was a crazy intern after 9/11. i am no longer in washington but we're covering the candidates visiting the battleground states quite a bit. you can hear an opinion what the candidates might do when they take office.
on the republican side, they feel like they can shake things up. from my outside perspective, i imagine secretary clinton, having so much experience in washington, would know what to do as far as putting people in place on day one. is there hesitation, nervousness, excitement as far as how long it may take for someone outside of political, like donald trump, to hit the ground running, especially in this climate of so much going on with terrorism, etc.? clay: there's always a debate and discussion about do you want veterans, d.c. veterans at the helm or do you want fresh perspective, fresh voices, fresh legs, whatever? the usual suspects are some new suspects running things. the answer is yes. i mean, the thought of standing in 2001 with se half of the 30-some-odd day
transition, fiscal transition, without andy card, a white house veteran as the chief of staff, is just unthinkable. i can't imagine how it would have ever gotten done. so the answer is, so there are some great values of having prior experience in a white house, in a cabinet agency, on a particular subject matter. but you also want the fresh faces of people. have done a fabulous job at the state level or regional level, or whatever. so the answer is all of the above. diversity of all kinds has proven time and time again, diversity leads to better decisionmaking, greater wisdom, greater fact assimilation, etc., etc., etc. so diverse in types of experience with state and local and private sector, so forth, is something to pay attention to. so if it's all veterans, problem. all rookie, problem. all lawyers, real big problem.
[laughter] clay: all whatever. so -- jamie: we have time for just a couple more questions. sir. inaudible] >> on that question, what about adding a former president to the mix? is that all upside, is it all downside? what is the mix? are there real things that you've seen? jamie: sounds like your question. >> are there real things you have seen given the process is already under way about the influence of the former president? mack: always the last question that gets you. max: i have theories. mack: i need need it. let me break that into two pieces, if i may. clearly we have the prospect of possibly having a former president being in the white house as the supporting spouse
of the president of the united states. so that's one aspect. that's really taking your question more broadly about former presidents in general. i certainly think, and president clinton's reflected in his administration and other presidents have as well that it's easy to become somewhat in a bubble and not have as broad a range of views in the white house that any president or senior staff experiences or cabinet level. so the broader view, picking up on clay's point, the makeup is important. but every president i think has turned to former presidents in a careful and proper and appropriate manner either for advice and counsel. you obviously had an unusual situation with president bush 43 and president bush 41 and that had to be handled in a very particular, careful manner. just like, obviously, president clinton and secretary clinton would have to be handled if secretary clinton's elected. but as a general rule, i think
any sitting president will consider and indeed use former presidents in specific situations, either for advice and counsel about other world leaders that they dealt with, other particular issues that they are knowledgeable about, and in many cases ask a former president, as we did jimmy carter, to travel to north korea because he knew the north korean leader with the crisis we were facing there. or when we had certain bipartisan efforts where we had four presidents come to washington and endorse and affirm a particular legislative initiative. . i think you'll see that continued as has been said over the years, more in me cent years than maybe 30, 40 years ago. i think that's a good thing. it has to be done in a very careful, thoughtful, balanced way. you can't overdo it.
i think any sitting president would be wise to consider using the knowledge and wisdom and ability of former presidents in a careful, judicious manner. reporter: jeff, with the national press club's newsletter, the wire. when it comes to filling vacancies, there's one thing that makes this upcoming transition different than any others which is there is a vacancy on the supreme court. should that be filled before anything else? later? around the same time as other positions in the white house and cabinet? >> i think the truth is that the -- it's important, one of the areas that's important to focus on is that the senate senate, a lot of folks when you look at the confirmation process point to the senate as being the
bottleneck. it's interesting if you look at the data, 70% of the time historically for filling jobs in the executive branch side has been held by the executive. only 30% by the senate. clearly some of the things the executive is doing is because they expect the senate to be asking certain questions or whatever it might be. the point of that statistic is to say that there in fact are lots of things that the executive branch can do to speed up the process of getting leadership in place in faster time. and the senate needs to be a partner as well. the judicial appointments are part of what also clogs up the system. 's not just the supreme court. it's also at the court of appeals and district court level. there is a lot of balancing that has to go-g on in terms of senate floor ty. a lot of critical equation that is have to be looked at. the important thing for this is to have an expectation, the goal that clay talks about, about getting the leadership team in place and understanding that there are going to be certain things you have to face that are going to be constraints that you can anticipate and there are
going to be a bunch you can't. and to have that be part of your planning process, to understand those asteroids will come in, as to be the end part and parcel of what has to happen. max: whether it's a supreme court seat or anything else, there will be things going on. a financial crisis. you have to prepare to deal with the unexpected in addition to the enormity of the task you know you got to deal with. the clerk: before we adjourn i want to mention a couple of upcoming events we have. on october 3 we're going to have the secretary of agriculture -- clay:, before we adjourn i want to mention a couple of upcoming events we have. third the secretary of agriculture. on we'll have the secretary of navy, ray. and so for those and other newsmaker events i encourage everyone to go to press.org.
i very much want to thank our panelists today. jamie: this is a great discussion and important one. i want to thank everyone who came for our news conference here and watching on television and radio. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org]
reverend daalry a seasoned democratic operative to help staff her potential white house. as the democratic candidate slowly but surely builds her transition team. you can read more at "politico."com. newt gingrich is advising donald trump don't bring up bill clinton's past marital infidelities in the next debate. the former house speaker is an informal advisor to the trump campaign. he made the comments in a podcast interview with abc news. this evening the former speaker and former labor secretary, robert roush, will debate whether donald trump can make america great again. it's the semiannual month gate debate on policy issues in toronto, canada c-span2 will have live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern. at 8:00 eastern the opening of the african-american history museum in washington, d.c. president obama was joined by the first lady and former president george w. bush and his wife, laura, had he dedication last saturday.
and it will reair again tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> what makes movies or stories about people and -- in crisis or in a crisis and the crisis either changes them or changes everybody else, and if you don't show conflict, if you don't show flaws, and if you don't show someone growing out of their flaws or something like that, you're seeing something you can't connect to and it doesn't quite have the same impact. > sunday night on "q&a," podhoretz movie reviewer for "the weekly standard" talks about the movies he's reviewed ranging from "lincoln," "spotlight" and "straight out of compton." >> the movie itself as an update of the classic show biz story about how the band got together and recorded its big hits is
pretty strikingly effective. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern onn's >> president obama is headed back to the u.s. after a 5 1/2 hour visit to israel for the funeral of shimon perez, the former prime minister died at the age of 93 wednesday. two weeks after suffering a stroke. in his eulogy president obama called mr. perez a man who saw "all people as deserving of dignity and respect." we're going to show you highlights from today's service. ]
world. yesterday the prime minister did something that was unthinkable back in the dark ages when i was president of the united states, he sent out a tweet. and the tweet reminded us of a simple fact. it was israel's first day. ithout shimon perez. he was in the knesset for 48 years, but for more than 70 of his 93 years, in one way or the other, in and out of government, he was a public servant. i was honored to share almost 25 of those years with him. first in our common efforts with prime minister rabin of blessed memory to forge a just and
lasting peace between israel and palestinians. .hen just as his friend someone who listened to, learned from, and laugh with him. and always was in awe of his beyond capacity to move even most crushing setbacks in order to seize the possibilities of each new day. i am honored the family asked me to tell you what he meant to someone who is not a citizen of this country i love so much. t who was never the less blessed and inspired i think in many ways is representative of
millions more he touched though he never met. israel watched him grow first from sort of young genius during his days to build undefeatable defense forces. through a long life to become a wise champion of our common humanity. someone who wanted the best for all children. yes, the israeli children. but also the children of his eighbors and the larger world. the previous speakers have reminded me again of a clip i saw last night on television where shimon was being interviewed by charlie rose, and he looked at him sort of saying i'm going to serve a softball up to you. and watch you hit a home run.
what do you want your legacy to be? and he said, i'm more concerned about tomorrow than yesterday. our complicated, brilliant iend steered by a simple .traightforward creed perhaps in no small measure to his constant relentless urging. the tomorrows he envisions are already being lived here in israel. by many young people in spite of all the troubles. you heard the prime minister talk about the dedication of the new high tech park. he's been talking to me about that for 25 years. and there are young people now throughout the region who are
trying to break both the mental and material chains that have eld them in bondage perhaps in no small measure to the inspiration he provided. s has been said, his critics often claimed he was a naive, overly optimistic dreamer. they were only wrong about the naive part. he knew exactly what he was doing in being overly optimistic. he knew exactly what he was doing with his dreams. he never gave up on anybody. i mean, anybody. you heard the prime minister talk about their beautiful friendship. it followed a very tough campaign.
but shimon always kept the door open. we shared so many wonderful times but my personal favorite was sitting with him and his old and personal friend sharon at his 80th birthday party listening to the back and forth was a sight to behold. it was worth the price of admission as the saying goes. in addition it was a perfect perez night. the stage was full of young people talking about what he had meant to their lives, including a young ethiopian member of your defense forces who had met as a very young child at the airport as part of the operation he supported.
the night ended, however, with a choir of israeli jewish and arab ildren singing together john lenon's wonderful song "imagine." shimon actually could imagine all the people living in the world today. he imagined all the things the rest of us could do. he started off life was israel's brightest student, became its best teacher, and ended up its biggest dreamer. he lived 93 years in a state of constant wonder. over the unbelievable potential to rise e rest of us above our wounds, our
resentments, our fears, to make the most of today and claim the promise of tomorrow. it must have been hard for him to do this. it's easy to say things like this at a memorial service. it's hard to do. first he had to master his own dealings -- demons, forgive himself for his own mistakes, d get over his own disappointments. the monumental effort required to be hat grew his heart bigger than his brain, which is really saying something. that effort also, i am convinced, is what made him forever young.
now he is gone. leaving only a blessed memory and a powerful example. if thosere than enough of us who loved him from near and far accept our duty to keep his gifts alive. for the rest our lives, whenever the road we travel comes to a dead end, or the good we seek to do hits a stone wall, or the nd of friendship we extend meets only a cold stare, in his honor i ask that we remember shimon perez's luminous smile.
the perez family, prime minister netanyahu, members of the israeli government, and the knesset, heads of state, and government, and guests from ound the world including president abbas whose presence here is a gesture and reminder of the unfinished business of peace. to the people of israel i could not be more honored to be in jerusalem to say farewell to my showed shimon perez, who at hat justice and hope are ideas. t of
a free life in a homeland egained. a secure life in a nation that can defend itself by itself. a full life in friendship with nations who can be counted on as allies. a bountiful life driven by simple pleasures of family and by big dreams. this was shimon perez's life. this is the state of israel. this is the story of the jewish people over the last century. it was made possible by a
founding generation that counts himon as one of its own. shimon once said the message of the jewish people to mankind is that faith and moral vision can triumph over all adversity. with shimon that moral vision was rooted in an honest .eckoning of the world as it is he said he felt surrounded by a sea of thick and threatening force. when his family got the chance to go to palestine, his beloved grandfather's parting words were . mple, shimon, stay a jew propelled with that faith he
found his home. he found his purpose. he found his life's work. but he was still a teenager when his grandfather was burned alive by the nazis in the town where shimon was born. the synagogue in which he prayed became an unfirno -- an inferno, the railroad tracks that carried him toward the promised land also delivered so many of his people to death camps. and so from an early chenoweth-hage shimon bore witness to the cruelty that human beings could inflict on each other in ways that one group of people dehumanize another. the particular madness of anti-semitism, which is run like a stain through history.
that understanding of man's ever present sinfulness would steel him against hardship and make im vigilant against threats to jewry around the world. but that understanding would never harden his heart. it would never extinguish his faith. instead, it broadened his moral imagination. and gave him the capacity to see all people as deserving of .ignity and respect it helped him see not just the world as it is, but the world as t should be. what shimon did to shape the
story of israel is well chronicled. starting in the can butts he founded -- kabutz he founded with his love he began work on building the model community. ben-gurion called him to serve at headquarters to make sure the jewish people had the armaments and organization to secure their freedom. after independence surrounded by enemies who denied israel's existence and sought to drive it into the sea, the child who had wanted to be a poet of stars became a man who built israel's defense industry. who laid the foundation for the formidable armed forces that won israel's wars. his skill secured israel's boldness position, his
sent israeli commandos to rescue jews from ethiopia. his statesmanship built an unbreakable bond with the united states of america and so many other countries. his contributions didn't end there. shimon also showed what people can do when they harness reason and science to a common cause. he understood that a country without many natural resources could more than make up for it with the talents of its people. he made hard choices to roll back inflation and climb out from a terrible economic crisis. he championed the promise of science and technology to make the desert bloom. and turned this tiny country into a central hub of the
digital age. making life better not just for people here but for people round the world. indeed, shimon's contribution to this nation is so fundamental, so pervasive that perhaps sometimes they can be overlooked. for a younger generation, shimon was probably remembered more for a peace process that never reached its end point. they would listen to critics on the left who might argue that shimon did not fully acknowledge the failings of his nation, or perhaps more numerous critics on the right who argued that he refused to see the true
wickedness of the world and alled him naive. with his er he shared his closest friends, to the world he brushed off the critics. and i know from my conversation was him that his pursuit of peace was never naive. every year he read the names of the family that he lost. as a young man he had fed his village by working the fields during the day, but then defending it by carrying a rifle at night. he understood in this war torn
region where too often arab youth are taught to hate israel from an early age, he understood ust how hard peace would be. i'm sure he was alternately angry and bemused to hear the same critics who called him hopelessly naive defend pend on the defense architecture that he himself had helped to build. i don't believe he was naive. but he understood from hard-earned experience that true security comes through making peace with your neighbors. we won them all, he said of israel's wars. but we did not win the greatest .ictory that we aspire to release from the need to win victories.
and just as he understood the practical necessity of peace, shimon believed that israel's exceptionalism was rooted not only in fidelity to the jewish people, but to the moral and ethical vision, the precepts of is jewish faith. the jewish people weren't born to rule another people, he would say. from the very first day we are gainst slaves and masters. out of the hardships of the diaspora, he found room in his heart for others who suffered.
became to -- he came to hate prejudice with a passion of one who knows how it feels to be its target. even in the face of terrorist attack, even after repeated disappointments of the negotiations, he insisted that as human beings, palestinians must be seen as equal in dignity to jews and must there ever -- therefore be equal in self-determination. because of his sense of justice, his analysis of israel's security, his understanding of israel's meaning, he believed that the zionist idea would be best protected when palestinians, too, had a state of their own. of course, we gather here in the knowledge that shimon never saw
is dream of peace fulfilled. a region is going through chaotic time. , and s are ever present yet he did not stop dreaming and he did not stop working. by the time that i came to work with shimon, he was in the twilight of his years. although he might not admit it. i would be the 10th u.s. president since john f. kennedy, to sit down with shimon. the 10th to fall prey to his charms. i think of him sitting in the oval office, his final member of israel's founding generation, under the portrait of george
washington, telling me stories from the past but more often talking with enthusiasm of the present. s most recent lecture, his next project, his plans for the future. the wonders of his grandchildren. in many ways he reminded me of some other giants of the 20th century that i have had the honor to meet. men like nelson mandela, women like her majesty, queen elizabeth. leaders who have seen so much, whose lives span such momentous epics that he they find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.
people who speak with depth and .nowledge, not in sound bites they find no interest in polls or fads. and like these leaders, shimon could be true to his convictions even if they cut against the grain of current opinion. he knew better than the cynic it that if you look out over the arc of history, human beings should be filled not with fear but with hope. i'm sure that's why he was so excited about technology because for him it symbolized the march of human progress. and it's why he loved so much to talk about young people.
because he saw young people unburdened by the prejudices of the past. it's why he believed in miracles. because in israel he saw a miracle come true. as americans and israelis we often talk about the unbreakable bonds between our nations. and, yes, these bonds encompass common interests. vital cooperation that makes oth our nations more secure. but today we're reminded that the bonds which matter most run deeper. anchored in a judeo-christian tradition, we believe in the irreduceable value of every human being.
our nations were built on that idea. they were built in large part by stubborn idealists and striving immigrants, including those who had fled war and fled oppression . both our nations have flaws that e have not always fixed. our history which dates back to our founding that we do not always squarely address. ntedbecause our founders pla the eternal s in soar, but also planted the seeds of democracy. we have the ability to always pursue a better world. we have the capacity to do what s right.
as an american, as a christian, a person partly of african descent, born in hawaii, a place that could not be further than here shimon spent his youth, i took great pleasure in my friendship with this older, wiser man. we shared a love of words and perhaps history and like most politicians we shared too great a joy in hearing ourselves talk. but beyond that i think our friendship was rooted in the fact that i could somehow see myself in his story and maybe he could see himself in mine because for all of our had liveds both of us
such unlikely lives. it was so surprising to see the , o of us where we had started talking together in the white .ouse, meeting here in israel i think both of us understood here only because in some way we reflected the magnificent story of our nations. shimon's story. the story of israel. the experience of the jewish people. i believe it is universal. it's the story of a people who over so many centuries in the wilderness never gave up on that basic human longing to return
ome. story of a people who suffered the boot of oppression and the shutting of the gas chamber's door, and yet never gave up on a belief in goodness. it's the story of a man who was counted on and then often counted out again and again and who never lost hope. shimon perez reminds us that the state of israel like the united states of america was not build by cynics. -- not built by cynics. we exist because people before us refuse to be constrained by the past or difficulties of the present. and shimon perez was never cynicle -- cynical. it is that faith, that optimism,
that belief even when all the thatnce is to the contrary tomorrow can be better that makes us not just honor shimon perez but love him. the last of the founding generation is now gone. shimon accomplished enough things in his life for a thousand men. but he understood it is better to live to the very end of his time on earth with the longing not for the past but for the dreams that have not yet come true. an israel that is secure and a just and lasting peace with its neighbors. so now this work is in the hand of israel's next generation. in the hands of israel's next generation and its friends. ke josha, we--- joshua, we
feel the weight of responsibility that shimon wore so brightly. but we draw strength from his example and the fact that he believed in us even when we doubted ourselves. scripture tells us that before his death moses said i call upon heaven and earth to bear witness this day that i have set before you life and death, blessing and curse, therefore choose life that you and your offspring may ive. choose life. for shimon, let us choose life as he always did. let us make his work our own. may god bless his memory and may god bless this country and this world that he loved so dearly.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> this weekend, c-span's tour along with our comcast cable partners. we'll explore the literary life and history of pueblo, colorado. >> it's really the railroad and the steel industry and the coal industry that bring pueblo as a city to where it is today. and i think it sort of speaks it's a natural place to settle with the arkansas river. people still keep coming back to this place because it's sort of a natural place to build a city. > on "book tv" on c-span2, fawn montoya, colorado state professor and author of the book "making an american work
force:the rockefellers and the legacy of ludlow." the colorado fuel and iron company which resulted in a nightmare nor john d. rockefeller jr. >> frank hayes actually walks out to rockefeller's car and tells him to turn around. he says, you're not welcome here. >> then, author matthew harris discusses his book "the founding fathers and the debate over religion in revolutionary america." >> religion is interesting. they didn't talk about religion at the constitutional convention. in fact, one of the only things they said is you didn't have to hold public office or didn't have to believe in the bible or some form of christianity to hold office. >> on "american history tv" hear about the ludlow massacre which took place during the colorado coal strike ever 1913 and 1914, and we'll visit the steel work center and talk with its curator about the colorado fuel and iron company.
>> so this is the shift change whistle for cf knife. learned pueblo children learned how to tell time by this whistle. >> the c-span tour of pueblo, colorado, saturday at noon stern on c-span2's "book tv" and sunday afternoon on "american history tv" working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> good morning, counsel. i hope you're ready. >> may it please the court. and me is nicholas compton i represent shaquille robinson. i'd like to reserve seven minutes for rebuttal which i see the clerk has done. thank you, your honor. your honor, the facts in this case are not in dispute.
on march 24, 2014, the jefferson county, west virginia, sheriff's office received an anonymous tip that an african-american male was in the parking lot of the 7-eleven in west virginia loading a firearm, concealing that firearm in his pocket and then entering a bluish-green toyota camry driven by a white female and heading out of the 7-eleven parking lot south on north mildred street. upon receiving that tip, officer kendall hudson and chief robbie roberts of the jefferson county sheriff's office left the station and went to track down this bluish-green toyota camry. officer hudson came upon the mry on north mildred street,
stopped the vehicle for a seat belt violation. he exited his vehicle, drew his weapon upon exiting the vehicle and approached the driver's side. when he approached the driver's side he asked for the driver's icense and he questioned the driver. >> in your view over here -- in your view, when the officer stops a car with probable cause nd the driver of the car has a concealed weapon permit, does that make -- does that make the stop less dangerous or more dangerous? mr. compton: i don't believe it makes the stop any more or less dangerous, your honor. judge shedd: so it doesn't matter? mr. compton: well, it's not
like it doesn't matter. judge shedd: it sounds like what you said. no, i mean as far as making to more or less dangerous. mr. compton: which is a fact to consider. judge shed: does it make it more dangerous or less dangerous? mr. compton: i think in this instance, when you factor judge shedd: i'm talking generally. mr. compton: if they are implying with the law of the state -- judge shedd: we don't know that. we know if he has a concealed weapon permit? mr. compton: if he has a concealed weapon permit and that permits him to carry that weapon legally, then i think that does -- that would take away from the factors that the officer has to -- >> the officer doesn't know. the officer on the street making the stop. mr. compton: he may not know he has a permit and that in states where you are required to have
a permit, the default is not -- the default standard is not you are possessing it illegally without a permit. >> even if he does, if the stop is legal, i know you described pretextual, there is no dispute the stop was legal. mr. compton: there is no dispute it was legal. judge deez: and a gun is no less dangerous. -- judge diaz: and a gun is no less dangerous. mr. compton: every firearm has some aspect it could be used in a manner that could cause harm. but i don't believe that is just one factor to consider when trying to determine the dangerousness aspect of the armed and dangerous to do the patdown search. >> we probably would spend our time better by getting directly to the issue. you mentioned pretectual. that's not an issue.
you don't have to go there. this case really comes down to the whole budge about a concealed weapon. i don't know what that means the term conceal weapon if you can possess the gun lawfully and walk out with it or even if it's concealed, the question is, do you have to show a permit in an instance or is it presumed that you have one? it really comes down to the question of having a gun -- by having a gun, is that -- does that mean you are armed and dangerous, at least from my perspective? and i don't know what the implications beyond this case means by that. mr. compton: i don't think having a gun means necessarily other than you are armed. i don't believe in and of itself possessing a gun, particularly when you are possessing a gun legally under the laws of the state, either by permit, concealed or by open carry or as is now the law in west virginia concealed without a permit which is -- >> i will ask one question. i understand that position, but
why is it safety for these officers, really the paramount concern here? i mean, if he's got a gun, the safety of an officer, we know the statistics in terms of officers being shot. we know the probability -- how things can happen. how is it we can say if he has a tip, this guy has a gun, he stops him, pretextual or not, why is it that point that something further like a frisk can't happen? mr. compton: we are all concerned with officer's safety. >> it's no just the safety of the officers. it's the safety of everybody there. mr. compton: that's correct. >> safety with the fellow with the gun too. mr. compton: that's correct, your honor. >> and the person in the car. everybody's safety is of concern. what can state law have to do with this? the standards here is fixed by the supreme court of the united states. mr. compton: i think state law goes to, your honor -- it
doesn't change the supremacy clause. it doesn't change the decisions of the supreme court. mr. compton: they cannot, your honor. >> they can't. so how could it have anything to do with it? mr. compton: it goes to whether or not the state legislature can make a determination as to whether or not its citizens are legally allowed to possess a firearm and what circumstances. if they are not -- if they possess a firearm openly and are not committing a crime by doing so, then that takes away from the dangerousness aspect of it. >> mr. compton, but aren't you ignoring the facts of this case? you said if they possess a gun openly, this man was concealing a gun and we have the factual circumstances of the case that provide the additional information that he was loading firearm in a public place in broad daylight at, what, 2:30
in the afternoon, and he then concealed the weapon on his person. now, why isn't that indicative of suspicious behavior irrespective of any laws allowing him to carry a gun? mr. compton: because none of that is illegal activity in west virginia, your honor. >> it doesn't have to be illegal to incite reasonable suspicion. all the police have to do, as i understand the laws of frisking, stopping and frisking, the police, when you are atalking about a stop, the police are looking for evidence of illegal activity and that's one thing. i think that's what you're pointing to, but when you talk about whether they have a right to frisk somebody whom they lawfully stopped, you are not talking about illegal activity. is re talking about someone armed and dangerous. isn't that correct, under the supreme court los angeles the breakdown of those two
concepts? if so, why isn't this indicative that somebody may be dangerous? that this conduct of loading a weapon in a public place, in a high crime area, why isn't that something more than just a citizen arming himself? mr. compton: i think your honor has stated it correctly, but i think illegal activity, yes, goes to the first part, can you stop? it's also a factor to consider. >> we don't have to consider the illegal aspect of gun ownership in this case and whether it's lawful or not because there was a reason for the stop. and that's conceded in this case. that the stop was valid, correct? mr. compton: correct. judge keenan: and then we look to the frisk. we look to whether this person was armed and dangerous. there is certainly he was armed. and why isn't their suspicion of dangerous activity when you're loading a gun, again, in a public place, in a place
where drug activity is apparently frequently conducted? mr. compton: your honor, i am not saying it's not a factor to consider in the dangerousness aspect. it is a factor to consider, but if the -- what -- >> how do you consider? and this goes back, i think, to judge's original question. you said in response to a question of whether one makes it more or less dangerous, that it was a factor to consider. it would be helpful for me to understand or to have you play out how you would consider the fact that the person was armed. >> and who is supposed to be considering this, the officer making the spot or is it a judicial determination? mr. compton: i think the officer has to consider the totality of the circumstances at the time of the stop. the officer has done a legal
stop because of the seat belt. he has information that this individual is armed. so we have the stop and the armed part of the armed and dangerous. so now he has to consider the -- the factors that make -- that could make him dangerous. one of those is this guy has a gun. what is he doing with that gun? has he pointed at somebody's head. is it illegal? did he hold somebody up with it? did he rope a bank? that's illegal activity. >> to follow up on judge duncan's question, it seems to e what you're saying, all this factor or consider, you're leaving officers completely at sea and i don't understand, this is a rapidly evolving situation and you don't know, you know, when it's going to turn hostile or deadly, and all
you're saying is, well, it's a fact to consider and everything. that's no help in the practical situation on the road. there are factual aspects to this question. the facts, question go into whether there's reasonable suspicion for a stop, and then there are the facts which go into the question of whether there's reasonable suspicion to believe someone is armed. but once you have reasonable suspicion to believe those two things, the supreme court has id numerous cases that the frisk can then proceed as a broe protective measure -- protective measure and something that's designed to lessen the tension of the situation and lessen the prospect or possibility there's going to be what none of us want which is the use of lethal force. and instead of this fairly
relatively clear path, you're just throwing up factors toe consider and i can only -- factors to consider and i can only imagine an officer scratching his head by the side of a road and wondering whether he can take the step of assuring himself that the situation is not potentially lethal before he goes forward. what are you leaving officers with? how is this going to be taught to them? how is this going to be communicated to them? mr. compton: i think it has to be communicated to them very carefully because i think they are tasked with making a decision, a very important decision whether to interfere with the personal liberty of an individual who they wish to stop for whatever reason and then put hands on. i think that's a very important decision. >> does the presence of the gun change that calculus?
does the presence of a gun change that calculus on what an officer can and should do? mr. compton: it can. it is a factor to consider in terms of the dangers. judge shedd: listen, does it alone change it? mr. compton: i don't think alone. i don't think having the firearm alone, particularly when you are in a situation, as we have described, where the -- judge shedd: your view is when an officer stops a person legally, the officer's approach should be the same to the driver when the driver -- when he knows the driver is unarmed and when he knows the driver is armed? mr. compton: in situations, your honor, when -- judge shedd: not situations. it should be exactly the same and the officer should just simply ignore the fact there is a weapon present. mr. compton: if it's in the jurisdiction where the individual is allowed legally to possess a firearm, the >> what you're saying is
different in west virginia than it is perhaps in maryland or pennsylvania or virginia, all those are very close by. so he has to know which jurisdiction he is in and the state law. so you're saying the west virginia legislature could change the supreme court decisions and the constitution. what do you do with the supremacy clause? mr. compton: no. judge king: well, west virginia law can't have anything to do with it. mr. compton: i think, sir, in terms of the calculus. i think the panel of the majority was alluding to this when they said in -- >> he has to be looking out for the safety of himself and everybody else there in order to carry out his duties. mr. compton: yes, sir. >> the supreme court has repeatedly said in terry v. ohio and michigan v. long and case after case after case that, yes, the frisk is, as you
said earlier, an indignity. there's no question about that. but it serves in many, many de-escalate the situation and lessen the tension. that's what you want to do here is to the degree you can lessen the tension so that the use of lethal force, which is something no one wants, will prove unnecessary, that an officer will be simply not as uptight and everybody will be not as uptight if they know there's not a chance of gunfire breaking out. so the supreme court cases talk about this in terms of a de-escalation measure and taking some of the tension out of the situation because it's the tension that leads to the worst of all outcomes which is the use of this lethal force.
how can we -- come back to judge king's question. how can we question that sort of rationale that has been given us in case after case after case? we don't have that authority. mr. compton: your honor, i understand the court saying that what we have to -- we're trying to de-escalate the situation here, but when an individual is exercising a right that they have given to them by the legislature of the state that they are in, i don't see how infringing upon that right in some way by padding them down, what happens if they find the gun when they pat them down? they don't just let them keep it, which they are allowed to do. the officer then takes the gun all of because, for instance, a seat belt violation. >> certainly you are saying the
state can grant a right that the supreme court can't restrict? mr. compton: no, your honor. i am not saying that west virginia has the power to overturn a supreme court decision. >> you're saying they could modify it. you're saying they can sir come cribe it and they can -- circumscribe it and they can. mr. compton: i'm not suggesting that. judge king: you are saying that's a factor they have to take into account. mr. compton: well, under the standard. judge king: the local ordinance or the local statute, when the officer is trying to determine to frisk somebody, he's legitimately stopped on the side of the road. and here he knows he has a loaded firearm in his belt. >> mr. compton, is it part of your answer for 200 years
states have been recognized to create privacy interests, and when a state legislature creates a privacy interest in the possession of personalities, such as a personality is entitled to exactly the same protection that any other person who is on the possession of a citizen of west virginia and that therefore state law has everything to do with what's protected under the fourth amendment, isn't that right? mr. compton: i think that's right and clearly the court has articulated it a lot better than i've been able to for the last several minutes. >> let me follow-up on that, too, because i think there is another right and you haven't mentioned the words second amendment just yet and yet there is a string of cases that is increasingly allowed for citizens to possess guns and to
possess them in public places that have been -- state laws have expanded on the right saying citizens have right. so where we come to now is, what happens when citizens exercise their right to carry a gun that we call dangerous but does the dangerous gun make the person dangerous? that's the that's the question here, dangerous. a person is armed is the person also dangerous? it seems to me we go in the direction we are headed, and it seems like we are, we are saying that individuals with a gun, by definition, are dangerous persons. that has implications beyond this felon who is carrying a gun. it deals with everybody who exercises a second amendment right and if it doesn't, i'd reich to know how we're going to differentiate and carve out an exception just for this
instance. every person who has a gun, a hunter, doesn't mat fer he has it in his home or wherever, is armed and dangerous. mr. compton: i think that's exactly -- >> they didn't walk up to mr. robinson simply because he was carrying a gun. that's another part of the activity and stopped and frisked him for that action alone themselves initial stop which you can see, gives the officers the right to encounter that. it seems to me the compromise here is, sure, the citizens of west virginia are entitled to exercise their second amendment rights and police officers can't stop them for doing that but if you do something else that warrants a reasonable suspicion, reasonable cause to stop, it seems to me that police officers ought to be assured that if they conduct a stop and find an asividual who is armed, that a result of that, they're entite
told protect themselves and protect others. why isn't that a reasonable compromise? >> i want to also add to that factual scenario, this is not just an officer ride do you think the road, seing a seat belt violation. he's going because he's been told this man has a gun and he put it in, let's look at the reail -- reality of what's happened here. they stopped this this guy because of the tip. tip of what? there's no tip. they got some information and they track it and i am -- everybody here knows, if you want to find a reason to stop a car, you just follow long enough, it might cross a line, might go a different place and you can do it. this is the thinnest of reasons to stop a car, for a seat belt violation, because of a tip. but i want you to answer just this, we cannot divorce that action from this case.
mr. compton: your honor's response -- >> those facts aren't relevant. the stop e the facts, is legitimate. mr. compton: we have conceded that the -- >> you have conceded that. mr. compton: i think judge wynn is correct -- >> are you withdrawing your concession. >> you did not concede that this was not -- this was a -- the officer testified i stop thed -- stopped the car to investigate the gun tip. i also had a seat belt violation. t is a justified stop. mr. compton: correct. perhaps i misunderstood what judge king was saying. it is a pretextule stop. i think my time has expired. >> you may proceed. mr. compton: i think judge wynn is correct in that was going to be essentially my answer to you,
your honor, in that it was the -- when the panel majority addressed this, it was the seat belt yes, that got him to stop, but the whole reason officer hudson and captain roberts left the station in the first place was because of the gun. the officer took the call, testified at the hearing that no illegal activity was conveyed to her by this tip. they left because of the gun. they left because of the gun. and the panel majority talks about how you're sort of in this weird sort of -- >> because of loading a gun in broad daylight in a high crime area. not just the gun. mr. compton: none of that is illegal activity in west virginia. >> it doesn't have to be illegal activity. over here, mr. compton. if it is evidence of suspicious behavior that would indicate a person is dangerous. it doesn't have to be illegal.
it can be perfectly legal. but if -- and this is what i'm concerned about. you're trying to deconstruct and this is what the supreme court has told us not to do, don't deconstruct every fact in the case and say that fact doesn't matter. it's the totality. it's the facts taken together. and the testimony was this was a high crime area, drug activity. not constant but persistent in the area. this man was -- this loading a gun ancon sealing it in a parking lot. why isn't that object i evidence of suspicious behavior, bearing on the issue of dangerousness at the time that he validly stopped the vehicle? mr. compton: when you're considering the totality of the circumstances, your honor, i think the officer can consider those factors when determining if this individual is dangerous. i think that --
>> why isn't that objective evidence that dangerous activity, loading a gun in the parking lot in the middle of the day where there are drug deals going on. r. compton: we don't know -- >> there's a history of drug deal, why isn't that something that activates the officer's concern. mr. compton: you're correct, there was no drug activity at the time. there was daylight, not night. there were two individuals in the car. not four or six or eight. here was one a one-on -- a one-to-one ratio between officers and individuals in the vehicle. the loading of the gun and concealing it was not a illegal activity. yes they described it as a high crime area. i don't mean to sort of poopoo that but we hear high crime area all the time and the officers testified that all of jefferson county is a high crime area.
7-eleven and apple gardens is a particular high crime area. we could get to multiple tiers of high crime and the officers just the scribed the entire state of west virginia as high crime area. that gets to be the point where i don't think the high crime area, when they -- >> loading a gun in the parking lot you pull into for your big gulp and there's a guy in the car next to you, i've been to that 7-eleven. and somebody is loading his weapon as you go in for your drink. can you really, objectively say that's not suspicious behavior. mr. compton: i would think it's suspicious. the state legislature thinks it's not. >> the state of west virginia says you can carry a gun on your person. it doesn't talk about what facts are suspicious in their to tallity. mr. compton: it sounds like we
disagree. >> even so, it seems to me that we're going to go in that direction, i don't see why we should cap it at the high crime aeroia. seems to me, someone who goes to a church peck nick and pulls out a gun and starts lowing -- loading it seems like a dangerous-looking person to me. if we're going to go in that direction, we ought to call it what it is. not just limit what we call high crime areas which definitely specifically means a particular type of neighborhood. >> yes, sir, i agree. >> thank you, mr. compton. mr. compton: thank you. >> booth. mr. booth: may it please the ourt, under pennsylvania vs. -- , if the
> under pennsylvania vs. mens, they decided, the officer said, mens was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. >> an open carry state, the officer noticed a bulge in someone's pocket would that be reasonable suspicion to make a stop? >> you have asked two distinct questions which are at the heart of this case. what reasonable suspicion do you need to have to make a stop? and what reasonable suspicion do you need to make a frisk. >> at the time of that case, pennsylvania was not an open carry state, right? >> you are correct. i'm going to continue that argument in a minute. i do want to get to a point -- >> do answer the question now. >> the question is, what is the impact of a state law that
allows for the open carry of a firearm in the context of a frisk and my answer is nothing. and the reason is because the supreme court has said twice, both in adams vs. williams, and then again in michigan versus long, that the validity of a terry frisk does not depend on whether or not the state gives the individual who has been stopped a right to carry a firearm. >> in this case, the officer essentially stop police department robinson. >> that's why i wanted to differentiate between a stop and a frisk. >> in both these cases, we weren't dealing with states that had open carry. >> i agree with you. >> the reason i believe that it doesn't change the calculus is because again, the supreme court as said adams vs. white.
>> in adams, counsel, the question was, given numerous conditions of grave suspicion, the middle of the night, the guy is in the car by himself, they had reasonable suspicion to suspect he's involved in drug offenses, and he has a gun. under those circumstances is the possibility that the gun is legally owned sufficient to make all the rest of it evaporate? and the answer is no. nobody is arguing that in this case. erybody agrees on the facts, there was reasonable suspicion that that gun, and the person with that gun presented a danger to the police and he refused to cooperate, wouldn't talk to the police. that's a different question. do thee question is, not gun itself and legally possessed gun make the owner of the gun a danger to the police if he's not sit big himself in a car in the middle of the night, not refusing to cooperate with police. it's a different question.
mr. booth: my answer to that, in adams vs. williams, the supreme court said, and connecticut did allow it, the supreme court said it didn't make a difference. let's assume they just did it once in adams vs. williams. let's go back now to michigan vs. long where they say it the second time. my answer is, the supreme court having said that twice, it's up to the supreme court to decide whether or not in the wake of heller state laws that allow individuals to carry firearms in public, it's up to them to decide whether that makes a difference. >> let me ask this. do you think any of the factors in this case are necessary for your argument other than the belief there's a gun present? in other words, does your argument rest at all on loading the weapon, high crime area, or any of that? or is it just the presence of
the weapon that authorizes whatever you propose? >> we made two arguments in this keas. our first primary argument is that under pennsylvania versus menz, valid traffic stop, reasonable suspicion, dangerous. no further fact new york further evidence of dangerousness is required. however, if the court -- >> is the answer to the question yes? it's a direct question. is it the presence is that enough? mr. booth: yes. if you are armed, you are dangerous. but our second argument is that assuming that the court does not agree with our submission of menz in this case, our secondary argument is if you need proof of case specific dangerousness factors, in this particular case you have -- >> you think under the law you don't need anything other than the presence of the weapon?
mr. booth: the presence of the weapon. and the reason why menz equated being armed with being dangerous is because it reflects the reality that traffic stops are inherently dangerous. >> a slight variation on judge shedd's excellent question. counterfactually, let's assume they were wearing seat belts. and contrary to judge wynn's reasonable hypothetical they never touched the lines they never exceeded the speed limit no, traffic offense that even the best officer in the could pretextulely come up with. an honest officer who absolutely testified, i stopped the car because of the anonymous tip that there was an armed individual in the car. would your argument be exactly the same? because that's what judge shedd is asking you. what else do you need to succeed ? >> for a stop or for a frisk? >> that's the point.
there's no evidence of reasonable suspicion of a crime until you get to the seat belt violation. >> that's correct. >> so judge shedd is asking you, as i rendered his question, take the seat belt violation out of the case, do you have reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offense? mr. booth: for purposes of the stop, no. >> if he hadn't come up with the seat belt violation, the mere fact the government's position here is, the mere fact that in a high crime area, middle of the day, 7-eleven parking lot a man loaded a weapon, put it in his pocket and got in a car that would not constitute reasonable suspicion to effect the stop? >> most likely yes. we've conceded that, yes. there's -- >> can i just -- >> go right ahead. >> in that situation, you would not regard the person as armed and dangerous? exactly the same situation
except no pretext for the stop. mr. booth: the armed an dangerous formulation, judge motz, comes up once you have a valid carry and you have reasonable suspicion that he's armed. as i was trying to explain to judge diaz earlier when he asked me the question, there's a fundamental difference in evaluating the significance of an open carry provision in dealing with whether an individual can be stopped for an offense. >> will you saying that -- are you saying that it depends on whether or not the facts require an encounter, so for instance, under judge motz's proposed set of facts, you could see a man with a gun in a parking lot get in a car and drive away but once you had the seat belt violation and the stop that brought the
two necessarily together and created the danger? is that -- mr. booth: i agree with that. >> i'm not -- i'm really not asking for agreement. i'm asking for an assessment of whether -- how can that be? driving away at a lawful speed with your seat belt on makes you armed and dangerous. mr. booth: no. >> no, you're not armed and dangerous when you d that, but if you don't have the seat belt on, you are. that can't be your answer. >> but it is. that's the thing. hypothetically, remember, robinson is a passenger. and so if two blocks down the road the car pulls over, he gets out and walks away, can the police stop him as a pedestrian? mr. booth: no, there wouldn't be an offense. >> so he's no longer armed and dangerous. or armed thus dangerous.
he's armed at the reasonable suspicion level but he's no longer dangerous because he's a pedestrian. but at the passenger -- but as a passenger in a car, stopped far seat belt violation, he's armed and thus dangerous under the government's scenario. mr. booth: and the reason for that, judge davis, as i'm trying to explain, is that the supreme court has said that traffic stops are inherently dangerous. as the supreme court said in rodriguez, they are especially fraught with -- >> but what's the sense that you can treat a passenger with the same level of suspicion for the protection of the officer. so in terms of the danger of a traffic stop, it doesn't make any difference whether it's the motorist himself or herself or a passenger. you can order a passenger out of the vehicle, as the officer did here, treating the passenger as you would the motorist when it
comes to the dangerous analysis. your submission is, once he's a pedestrian, unconnected to the vehicle, he's no longer dangerous, though the level of belief that he's armed is exactly the same. >> what if he were a jaywalking pedestrian? what if we stepped off the sidewalk, that violates municipal ordinances in a lot of places. >> he'd become dangerous again. he's wavering in and out of being dangerous. mr. booth: my submission would be that even in the case of a municipal ordinance, you have a valid stop -- >> if off valid encounter. >> not encounter. nothing like a consensual encounter. only with respect to tarry stops, there has to be reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime. our submission goes -- will go even further to say, in that situation even, if reasonable
suspicion, you committed a crime, even if it's a municipal ordinance, and you have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed, she dangerous. and you can frisk him. >> that takes away from your traffic stop, takes away from your rationale you said the supreme court said a traffic stop is inherently dangerous. mr. booth: the level of dangerousness in traffic stops far exceeds -- >> i know, but the justification in your answer earlier, i think your position might well be that a valid stop and an encounter or stop or whatever you want to call it, justifies interaction with that personal who you have reasonable suspicion to believe is armed might create a dangerous situation that would allow, so it's reasonable suspicion not just of criminal activity but reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous. and you think you could make that assessment in a valid stop if they're just walking down the
street, being armed would not be enough to stop him. but you're using the justification a little earlier, you kept reading that the traffic stop is inherently dangerous. mr. booth: i said earlier, i'm trying to -- maybe i'm not succeeding as well as i'd like to be. there's a difference in the reasonable suspicion calculus in deciding whether a stop is lawful. >> i've got that already. i'm talking about when -- you were saying that the counselor's own reasonable suspicion for armed and dangerous is in large measure, you get the benefit because the supreme court has said a traffic stop is inherently dangerous. that's what you kept saying. but these scenarios, we could come up with others, when it has nothing to do with a traffic stop. >> that's correct. >> but your answer is the same. mr. booth: my answer also applies in terry vs. ohio, did not involve a traffic stop but
did involve a burglary-robbery and in that particular case, the supreme court basically said the same thing, that you are armed -- >> so you don't think it requires a traffic stop, you just think those are the facts of this case. mr. booth: well, this is a traffic stop. >> i know that. mr. booth: under mimms, the danger inherent in a traffic stop is exceedingly high. >> that's not my question. so you think in this case, we have the law on the traffic stop, which justified the pat down, and these fact, but you don't think you need this scenario with the exceedingly dangerous situation of the traffic stop. you think, i think you're saying this, that just a lawful encounter that includes reasonable suspicion of a weapon would be enough for a pat down. >> that's not what you said. >> if the drive ore they have vehicle was the one that had the
seat belt violation and not the defendant, your answer is the same, is what you're saying. mr. booth: if you could repeat that? >> here the defendant had the seat belt violation , he stopped the car because of that but if the drive ore they have car had ea the seat belt violation not the defendant the answer is the same? he's armed and dangerous because the car has been stopped. mr. booth: any time you have a traffic stop -- >> did you understand my question? it's either yes or no. >> what if the defendant didn't do anything wrong. he's wearing his seat belt. >> he's wearing his, the driver does not. the car is stopped by the officer. same scenario? same answer? mr. booth: in the event that you have one person does not have the seat belt and if it's a violation of west virginia law, the officer can stop the car, or if a passenger doesn't -- >> the answer is either yes or no. i understand the explanation. the answer is either yes or no. mr. booth: the answer is if anybody in the car is -- is
reasonably suspected of being armed you can frisk him, yes. >> what about the case where he got out of the car? all the same facts, the tip, the driver is driving along, he sees a seat belt violation, they're a couple of blocks ahead of them, our defendant gets out of he car and -- out of the car and stops walking down the street. mr. booth: if the officer is making a traffic stop -- >> a couple blocks later, he stops the car, the defendant is no longer out of the car. mr. booth: that's a tougher question if he's gotten out of the car. >> you see the problem there? if you're having a problem with it, it suggests that his -- if there's nothing about him concealing a weapon that makes it armed and dangerous. mr. booth: any time you have -- anybody in the car who, well, you have an individual in the car who is suspected of being armed and he's in a car and there's a legitimate stop.
>> your point -- >> but he's no longer in the car. >> an officer as well as a driver -- >> in this particular case, the evidence in this case was, it was the male that had the firearm. it wasn't the female. the government, we would not agree that the female, the driver could have been frisked under terry because there was nothing to believe she was armed. >> i understand. but you understand why -- i won't belabor it. stop at a traffic light. the cop is a couple of cars bind him, doesn't stop him then. the guy gets out of the car and starts walking. he's going to go get a soda. >> so he's gotten out of the car, there's no seat belt -- in that case, there's no reasonable suspicion to stop him. >> he's no longer armed and dangerous. >> there's no reasonable suspicion. the armed and dangerous formulation only comes up once you have had a legitimate stop
of that individual and reasonable suspicion to believe he is armed. >> we do all these hypothetical here's and there, the danger, i think, of moving away from the base exthrust of the supreme court decisions in case after case after case. and that is, when you get in a situation where a gun is present and where you have a stop which is the traffic stop, particularly, but other stops, they have a certain level of potential -- they have a certain level of tension. but the supreme court says when you get in these confrontational situations or tense situations, a policeman is justified in taking a small protective step that may save a life, whether it's his or someone else's. or the suspect's. these are situations that are
inherently tense. they're inherently have a certain degree of confrontation. there's apprehension about what the police may find. there's anger at being stopped. and so the situation can turn on you. and given the dynamics of these situations as a general rule, it makes sense to just allow a small, protective step that may very well be lifesaving. >> it was some time ago but i must challenge your last statement you said, and your whole argument turns on this notion that it is the stop, the legal i have to the stop that informs the arm and dangerous analysis. but in fact, as i'm sure you'll recall, the famous officer mcfadden in the terry case didn't stop at all.
remember? the defendants, mr. katz in particular, was walking back and forth in front of that business walked up to him, he was a pedestrian. mcfadden had reasonable suspicion they were casing the joint for a robbery as someone earlier suggested. mcfadden said a few words, katz mumbled something in response and mcfadden immediately laid on hands and produced a handgun from inside the overcoat pocket when he patted him down. one of the ironies of terry and the so-called stop and frisk , in terry, there was no stop. it was an encounter between peed pedestrian screens in downtown cleveland. so the supreme court -- is that coming back to you now? so the whole armed and dangerous, the ideology, the
origin, the genesis of the notion that a police officer can frisk an individual with whom the officer is entitled to have whole nter, that doctrinal background arises out of a case that didn't involve a stop. hat involved only a frisk. and chief justice warren was clear this was supposed to be a limited intrusion on less than proximate cause because you want police officers to one, prevent crime, and two protect themselves. o honestly, it's not true that every stop is ok to give rise to a frisk. hose are two separate analyses and dangerous. you're arguing it's armed or
dangerous that gives rise to the frisk. that's not what the supreme court has ever said. >> he patted him down, felt the bulk, reached into the pocket and pulled out the handgun. >> i think they stopped him at that point. >> terry has always been viewed as a carry stop and tarry frisk case. >> absolutely incorrect. look it up. there was no stop in terry. it was a consensual encounter between mcfadden and katz outside the business. there was not a stop. one of the ironies of terry, we call it stop and frisk but it was only about the frisk. remember justice hollings' concurrence go into the first we have to talk about whether it's ok for a police officer to be in the presence of an individual.
it's ok for a police officer to be in the presence of an individual provided there's a basis. but the majority in terry didn't have to go through that analysis because they were standing on the street and mcfadden was peeping around the telephone pole watching them. >> i have to disagree with you. i have always understood terry to be a case about a stop. >> you're not alone. >> you were relying also on pennsylvania vs. mimms, correct? >> yes. >> is it your point then sir that the supreme court took terry and then applied it to differentcismuations? i don't know. i'm not clear from what you're saying. never really talked about the progression of the law over time here. and what the supreme court did in adams vs. williams what it
did in pennsylvania vs. mimms and the evolution of this concept through i guess maybe arizona vs. ganz. but the different case, how the supreme court has talked about that, isn't that something we have to consider how this law that is evolved and not just consider as a frozen concept? it seems to me maybe you're -- you're leaving that out of your nalysis. >> are you talking about the legit ma soif the armed and dangerous out -- outside of the traffic stop. >> this is a traffic stop. hat's why i'm relying on that. >> if it was limited in some way in terry, the court has expanded it. >> and they extend it even further in michigan vs. long when the court held that what you could do is actually if you
have a stop of a car you could go into the passenger compartment to go ahead. sips you brought up michigan vs. long, the supreme court uses the term potentially dangerous to refer to someone armed. the tip driverat is the defendant, he's alone, seat belt on, there would be no reason to stop the car, correct? same tip, person driving is the defendant, he's driving. has the seat belt on. no other traffic violations. >> if there's no other traffic violations, all you had was a tip and no traffic violations. >> same tip, driving lawfully, no reason to stop, right? >> that would amount to
reasonable suspicion to stop the car. >> so dangerousness -- armed is already there. there's reasonable suspicion he's armed. the conjunctive of dangerousness, police officer creates that by his presence or her presence. dangerousness is solely based on the presence of a police officer, not anything he was doing. it's the presence of the officer that creates dangerousness. that's what happens when you have a force -- >> that's what happens when you have a forcible encounter -- >> doesn't mat fer it's forcible or not. you talk to someone on the street, and you believe that someone told you that they're armed. n that circumstance, dangerousness is created by the police officer encountering them. >> when you're having a police encounter alone, not a terry stop, the fact that an individual is armed doesn't give rise to the armed and dangerous
formulation. >> it wouldn't make him dangerous? you'd have a gun a person and a police officer that trying an lates with dangerousness, doesn't it? >> just having a firearm in and of itself doesn't make you dangerous. my purpose, for purposes of this case -- >> you're leaving out the other part. the police officer makes it dangerous. the presence. right? >> the police officer opportunity -- there's -- i'm trying to understand -- >> the police officer is encountering you, wouldn't the police officer have the same interest in being safe because he knows you have a gun based on his tip or whatever. what difference does it make? you're there, you have the gun, doesn't it make it dangerous in every instance? >> you have to have a justification for doing the frisk. >> hasn't the supreme court said that police officers can encounter people without -- walking down the street, police officer said, hey, sir, ma'am, can i speak to you for a minute?
are you telling me a police officer can't do that? >> of course. >> he or she is present and you have a gun, doesn't it make it dangerous? >> you're using dangerous in a cloak wall sense. >> might be killed, is that cloak wall? hat do you call it then? >> it sounds to me you're backing yourself off your original position, you're saying there has to be plus factor. the fact that you're armed opportunity make you dangerous in a traffic stop. >> i didn't say that. let me go back to the consensual encounter. i said from the begin -- >> what does consent have to do with dangerousness? the judge said you can be shot on a consensual as one you interdict, what difference does that make? that's what the case is about. you're creating dangerousness by the police presence.
so that doesn't make any difference whether it's consensual or not. >> it makes a difference in order for the police to frisk an individual, to forcibly take a gun away from him. >> that's what they did here. >> in a, as i'm trying to explain to judge keenan, under mimms, there's a valid traffic stop -- >> but tell me -- i think this is consistent with what everyone else is asking you. you are conceding, right that if it's a consensual encounter, we have held in black that just because you are carrying a gun you can't be stopped and you gree with that, right? you can't be stopped because you're carrying a gun in a public area. that is what happened here. the officer testified, i stopped this car because of a tip that the guy was carrying a gun. that is why i stopped the car. understood it was justified because also there was a seat belt violation. but my question for you, and
this goes back to what judge wynn asked, given how easy it is as a practical matter for the police to pull over a car because there's proximate cause of a traffic violation or something that the police officer mistakenly but reasonably believes was a traffic violation, how much is left of the rule that you can't stop a person for carrying a gun? if all you have to do is wait for them to waver over the middle line or step off the curb right before the light turn, then you can stop them and frisk them. s that practical matter what is left of our rule that you can't be stopped that you're carrying a gun? mr. booth: what is left is there has to be a violation. >> how hard will it be for the police to find one? >> a practical -- mr. booth: i have a feeling that you're question is more directed to the merits of renn and as long as renn remains in the book, as long as there's a rehe
jatej it mat traffic stop, even if the officer had a pretextule motive, officers can do that. all you had in mimms was an expired license plate. yet the stop was justified. >> there's something unusual about this case, usually when the police conduct, renn as well, when police conduct a renn stop they're limited in what they can do by the justification for the stop. they may have a huge you're dealing drug, pull you over for running a traffic signal they can write you a ticket, they can't search you for drugs. this is a unique case. in this case, under your position, they pull you over because they have a hunch that the gun you possess may be possessed illegally and they can now investigate the underlying hunch in the course of the pretextule stop. this is an unusual application of renn. >> i understand it's an unusual application but this is on virtually all fours with mimms.
as far as the legitimacy of the tip, i know that hasn't been raised yet, but i mentioned the first circuit decision. >> i don't think anybody would argue about the legitimacy. if i could get to one question, we've been an act i group this morning. u know, you rely on adams, mimms, michigan, all those cases were decided before the supreme court's rediscovery of the second amendment, right? do we have anything from the supreme court that is telling us how we are to balance fourth amendment rights versus second amendment rights? >> that's why i said, judge motz , in light of the decision in adams and michigan vs. long that state law duvent matter, we think it's up to the supreme court to decide whether or not keller makes a difference. >> but we have keller too. it's not just adams and mimms and michigan vs. long. we have keller and its progeny
the supreme court has decided. >> one thing i would like to say. i may not have much time left. >> you don't have any time left. >> one thing and then i'll sit back. there's no second amendment claim in this case. second amendment, when an officer takes a gun away during the stop he gives it back to him afterwards so the deprivation is extremely limited. stops take usually only 30 minutes or so. any deprivation under the second amendment we would say is not a violation of this, to take the gun for a brief period of time. >> the situation comes up because of the resurgence of the second amendment. that's why west virginia, you talk about we don't, you said we don't pay attention to west virginiaian law. but west virginiaian law has evolved because of the evolution of the second amendment. jurisprudence. wouldn't you agree? >> i'm out of time. would you like me -- >> you can just say whether you agree or not. >> for purposes of terry frisk
law where the supreme court says state law doesn't count, we say it's up to the supreme court to change the law. >> let me ask you, why do we need to limit it if we follow your analysis. you say it's deprivation for a short period of time but it's an individual's right to have a gun under the second amendment. why limit it just to this under your analysis to a zphar that officer is no less in danger when he encounters an individual in any situation if he has a tip he has a gun, whether high crime or a church picnic i spoke about. so why don't you just advocate that we say everybody who possesses a gun, lawfully, unlawfully, whatever, if you have that gun and police have a tip to it, there's reasonable suspicion, they can be frisked? >> only if there's a valid stop in advance. >> i understand that but why? what's the big deal about a valid stop? he's still dangerous. if that officer encounters him
with an invalid stop or any other situation, the same factors that the judge alluded to about being dangerous and protecting the citizens and everybody else exist. why don't we just broadly say, anybody that exercises a second amendment right, they do so with the knowledge that there's a fourth amendment and therefore you are going to be subject to being searched and whatever else is necessary for the safety of citizens, officers and yourself. is that ok? mr. booth: i would like to again say it would be up to the supreme court. >> is that ok? is that a good analysis? mr. booth: right now the officers can frisk the individual if they have a reasonable suspicion to believe that he's armed even if the individual's state allow hims to carry firearm. >> but the latitude that, you going as far as the latitude the supreme court has given you. >> i wouldn't go any further. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. booth.
mr. compton: the government in their petition for rehearing argued that the standards should be armed and if you're armed then you're automatically dangerous. i think my understanding of the government's presentation just now and perhaps this was judge keenan's inquiry to the government is that the government is now saying that just having a firearm doesn't make you dangerous. and that has been our position, that the standards should be armed and dangerous and that analyses.separate >> is it armed and -- is armed and dangerous a unitarian concept? mr. compton: i don't believe so, sir. >> i think that's a key point. it's not one-sided. you say it's not. mr. compton: i don't believe it's a unitary concept. i believe there's analysis for armed and then there's analysis for dangerousness.
that's present. some of the hypotheticals the court pointed out go to that. if the defendant is, as judge motz was say, sitting in the car and all of a sudden he's armed and according to the government would thus be dangerous. but as soon as he steps out of he car or if he jaywalks or if he's at a church peck nick, he's not dangerous anymore. >> it's entirely possible that at least for purposes of terry frisk, the frisk analysis that the supreme court has linked the two and said under the circumstances presented by the forcible encounter, a person who is armed is thus dangerous, so there is some -- am i not correct that the supreme court has created some linkage between
those two? mr. compton: i don't think they have created a direct link as your honor suggests. >> i thought they used that language. there's no thus in these supreme court cases? >> the court said, quote, the bulk of the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that mimms and thus -- was armed and thus posed a serious danger to the safety of the officer. ofthose circumstance any man reasonable caution would likely have conducted the pat down and thus posed a serious and present danger of safety. that's the supreme court. we can't change that. and they don't purport to ever try to change it. that's consistent with what terry said. >> and to follow up, what the supreme court has done, it seems to me that to strike a very careful balance and what they've
said is, you have to -- police are not free to run wild. they have to have number one reasonable suspicion for a stop and they have to have, number two, reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and those two things protect the rights of the citizen, the motorist. and there's a third prong which protects imbalances, protecting the safety of the officer. you protect the rights of the citizen through the first two prongs of the reasonable suspicion for the stop and reasonable suspicion they're armed. if those two criteria and conditions are met you have to balance the situation by protecting, according some protection to the safety and life of an individual officer. what the supreme court, it seems to me, didn't want to happen is what i worry will happen with
your argument because you've all -- you've given, i don't know how something like this, would ever be taught at the police academy because we want them to obey our decisions and in turn, we've got to give them something that can actually be communicated to them. what you've given is just put the ball back in the air. that seems to me to require an officer whose life could be on the line to make a very fine shaven totality of the circumstances before he can even take a step that may very well save a life. and an innocent life at that. and it seems to me there's a danger, or just knocking the supreme court decisions and what they've tried to accomplish, what they tried to balance is knocking it completely off the
tracks with your views. >> i think your honor has described it as three pronged, the prong to stop, the prong of dis-- to disample and the prong of the dangers. that's not what the government is suggesting. the government is suggesting that we have the first prong and second prong and we can just stop. >> let me say this. back to the question that judge duncan asked, followed by judge king -- keenan, armed but dangerous you said the supreme court didn't say that, but he just read it to you. mr. compton: it may be the sentence or two preer to that, they use the phrase armed and presently dangerous. they use the conjunctive there i don't think that because they use the term thus in that -- >> over here, can i ask a question. you're conceding, aren't you, that in a nonconcealed carry
jurisdiction, whether it's illegal to carry a concealed gun in public if the police say someone -- see someone with a gun, they're dangerous because they're illegally carrying a gun. people who illegally carry guns do so for a nefarious reason. >> that's correct. >> it was correct above the mason dixon line at the time mimms was decided in 19677 wasn't it? mr. compton: yes, your honor. it was. i think that was start of the point that i was not articulately making originally was that what judge harris, you've described, would be these illegal activities taking place with the gun and it could be the illegal activity could be the illegal possession of the gun. that's not what we have here under the facts and circumstances of this case and it's not what we have in west virginia in 2016. or 2014 when -- >> guns are illegal, only guns -- only criminals will have guns.
that's why mimms was a different case. mr. compton: i agree. have five seconds left. >> are you complaining? all right work that, we'll ask bring rk of the court to them down. >> the fourth circuit has not ruled on the stop and frisk case yet. and in washington, d.c., the supreme court begins its new term on monday. constitution daily reporting the sort said this morning it will accept eight new cases but already said it won't act on an appeal from the washington redskins football team about a trademark ruling and did accept a case of a rock band that trademarked an offensive name. wohl be following oral targets thut throughout the supreme
court's new term. and debate tonight between former house speaker newt gingrich and harold wright on whether donald trump could make america great again. the munk debates are held in toronto, watch it live at 7:00 eastern or 4:00 pacific on c-span2. here on c-span, 8:00 eastern, the opening of the african-american culture and history museum where president obama was joined by the first lady and former president bush and his wife laura at the dedication of the smithsonian's newest museum. >> what makes movies or stories about people and in crisis or in a crisis and the crisis either changes them or changes everybody else and if you don't show conflict if you don't show flaws and if you don't show someone growing out of their flaws or something like that,
you're seeing something that you can't really connect to and it doesn't quite have the same impact. >> sunday night on q&a. movie reviewer for "the weekly standard," talks about the movies he's reviewed, ranging from quit lincoln," "spotlight," and "straight outta compton." >> the movie itself, an update of a showbiz story, how the band got together and recorded its big hits, pretty scrikingly -- strikingly effective. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> how house speaker paul ryan talked about recent republican proposals on immigration, health care, tax policy, and poverty at the annual washington ideas forum hosted by the atlantic magazine and the aspen institute in washington, d.c. speaker ryan's comments ran about 20 minutes.
>> good morning. i think the question everyone in washington is wondering is, where did you learn to ham aeronail and are you considering a remedial courses for your colleagues? mr. ryan: we're big deer hunters where i come from, you built your own deer stands in trees, hammers and nails. now you can buy a stand cheaper than you can buy the lumber and nails for it. >> that was quite a moment. another thing you spent a lot of time constructioning is your better way document. house republicans if you keep the majority are you committed to moving forward on that egardless of who is president? mr. ryan: thank you for that. this is six big solutions to big problems facing this country that we obviously believe is much easier to do with unified republican government, but look at the issues we're trying to
tackle. number one is poverty. let's go after the root causes of poverty. let's define success by outcomes. are we getting people out of poverty not by input or throwing money at problems. evidence based policymaking. i would like to think there's a lot of space for the kind of evidence-based welfare reforms we're talking about here no matter who is in what office. clearly we think it would be easier if we had unified government. rebuilding our military has been controversial. unfortunately, between the two parties that one might be difficult. regulatory reform, constitutional separation of powers, restoration. those are things we had pretty profound disagreements with progress is osmba macare is imploding , in what actuaries term a death spiral. we propose an altern along with entitlement reforms to prevent debt crisis in the future. that has to be dealt with because the law is imploding. and then tax reform. tax reform again inevitable. must have to have to happen
because of just the fact that we are losing our competitiveness so quickly in this country. more and more american countries are either inverting or getting bought by foreign companies an we're losing homegrown businesses. >> let's walk through the priorities. start with health care. obamacare has problems, on the other hand census reported only 9.1% of americans are uninsured, one of the lowest number. would you say as a matter of principle that whatever you replace it with should have to meet the test of reducing the number of americans, keeping the number of americans without insurance down to that level? mr. ryan: we should have a plan that helps people who are uninsured get health insurance and there are far better ways. i'll say it this way. we can have a system in this country where everyone has access to affordable health insurance, including people with pre-existing conditions, obviously for people who are low income, without having a costly government takeover that cranks up premiums, deductibles and kenies choices. kaiser put out a study that says
31% of our nation's counties only offer one plan. another 30% offer two plans. to e're going from -- going a monopoly and these are public ewe fillities where people are get nothing choices and they're getting such high premium increases. the law is implosing. united pulled out, aetna pulled out. >> should the alternative have to meet the standard -- mr. ryan: there are going to be people in this country that for one reason or another will choose not to have health insurance youmple son who is an army range for the business school probably has an invisibility complex , he may -- invincibility complex, he may choose not to have insurance. but for those who want and need it we can have a system that can do it. that's what we propose. this provides universal seaks to health care. >> on the tax side, go back the last 30 years or so. reagan cut taxes, got big job
growth. bill clinton raised taxes, got ven more job growth. george w. bush cut taxes, only 1.3 million jobs over eight years. president obama is now past 11 million jobs after raising taxes. what is there in that record that gives you confidence that tax cuts are the key lever to accelerate job creation and economic growth? mr. ryan: that was all 20th century. >> obe ma is 1st century. they raised taxes and have 10 times as many jobs created as president bush after bush cut taxes. >> and we're average 1g% to 2% growth, flat wages, anemic growth, probably a recession around the corner what i mean when i sea we're in the 1st century, this economy is so global so interconnected, capital is so mobile, in the 20th century, america was out there in the lead, could dominate. that is not the case anymore. we have to be competitive.
let me -- overseas, which where i come from means lake superior, the canadians, they tax all their businesses at 15%. ireland is 12.5%. china is at 25%. our corporations are taxed at 35%. the highest in the industrialized world. our successful small businesses, we call them pass-throughs, like subchapter s corporations, their top tax rate is 44.6%. the point i'm trying to make if we keep taxing our businesses at so much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors tax theirs, we'll lose in global competition. more to the point, companies are going overseas an repatriating overseas to, because of taxes. i have met with one big company, i won't name the company, huge business in minnesota, who became a foreign company so that they could take their overseas money and reinvest back in this country. this is crazy. so the point i'm trying to make is, in the 21st century, you can't just think you can tax and tax and tax and there'll be no
international consequences. we've got to make our tax code more competitive so it pays to stay in american business so it makes sense to manufacture in america, so it makes sense to have your headquarters in america. >> let me ask you about another -- mr. ryan: that to me is inevitable. >> let me ask you about another area of focus, poverty. you spend a lot of time going into communities where republicans don't usually go and you said that republicans face hurdles in those places. what have you learned about the way republicans are perceived and what will it take to change those perceptions? mr. ryan: show up, show up, show up, listen, listen, listen. you've got two ears, one mouth, use it in that proportion. what i learned there are incredible poverty fighters in communities who are doing amazing things. don't try to displace them and tell them i'm here to tell you what to do. help them. support them. give them oxygen.
space. help them replicate violence free zone. it's a thing we created in milwaukee. pulaski high school is a people in high school know it it had 14 gangs. this was not a safe place to have your kid go to school. we created this mentor program where former gang members, kids who you were down and out and got redeemed came in and became mentors 24/7. and they helped get these kids on the right path, avoiding mistakes. they had credibility. zeer owe gangs. graduation rates are up. test scores are up. what are we doing? we're cross-pollinating and bringing this idea to kenosha, it's going on in dallas, around the contry. these are home-grown solutions. the way i say this is, private sector, public sector, they are not working together in the same direction in tandem with one another. we need to do that so we're all pushing and pulling going after root causes of poverty and that to me is what republicans can offer. disruption into this poverty
industrial complex. disruption into the stay toes quo that has failed us so we can actually have reforms that measures success based on outcomes. ron: the criticism you hear, though, is the budget priorities don't always match up -- the argument is your budget priorities don't match up with your language and rhetoric. 62% of the cuts over 10 years in a republican budget would focus on low and moderate income. does that undermine your claim? mr. ryan: i don't find them as a credible budget source. i think the cfpb, they are fairly left of center. we dispute their assessment, their numbers. this is not bauth cutting exercise. this is a lifesaving exercise. what will happen is if we're successful at getting a person from welfare to work there will be budget savings at the end of the day because of that. that's how the budget savings ought to be achieved. let me say it this way. we've got a poverty track where
you stack up also of different benefits for a person so that it pays not to work. if you're a single mom you get about 24 grand in benefits, two kids, get offered a job, or get a raise, you lose 80 cents on the dollar. you lose your childcare. they basically disincentivize people to move up and out of poverty. what we're proposing is to change all of that, taper those benefits, and customize welfare benefits to a person's particular needs with important incentives. you got to work. benefits are conditional. or go to school, get training, get the soft skills and hard skills. the point is if we can customize benefits to get people from where they are to where they need to be, then there will be plenty of savings at the end of the day. at the front end, it shouldn't be about saving money, at the back end it will be about getting people up and out of poverty and there will be savings. that's the way we > it. ron: jack kemp was someone you worked with i covered and admired. i spent a few days with him in
1994 as the republicans were driving towards their first majority in years. he said to me one day on this trip, we can't be just the party of little government and big prisons. the party of little government and big walls. do you feel he's right? mr. ryan: people are pushing for criminal justice reform. i think both parties, democrats and republicans, bill clinton signed these into law. we have overcompensated. we went a little too far. now that we have learned there are better methods of incarceration, better methods of getting people on the right path, we want to institutionalize redemption. those are things many of us are working on. ron: it looked promising earlier this year. mr. ryan: we're working -- in the house we got six bills. we're still working on it. ron: for this year? i mr. ryan: yeah. ron: the polls have shown in the republican primaries that in virtually every state except for
alabama and mississippi, every other state with an exit poll a majority of republican primary voters supported some kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants here in the u.s. is a possible for a republican house to move forward on that in 2017 that would include some legal status? mr. ryan: i have written very extensively about this. probably know my position on this issue. i think there is a way to deal with the undocumented population that doesn't involve mass deportation. that doesn't move am necessary tifment that gets a person a way to earn their right to a work permit. but you've got to start with security. the problem so many people have is, there's no faith or confidence that we'll actually secure our border. that we'll have interior security. so that the feeling is we'll do something on the legal side, but we won't secure our border and be in the same problem 10 years down the road. ron: you can bring your republican colleagues in the house along? mr. ryan: what i don't think works is a big comprehensive
bill. they collapse under their own weight. i think you stage reforms and they must begin with the confidence building exercise that is critical for national security. it's in our national security agenda to secure the border. interior enforcement. in the day and age of heroin coming into our high schools, isis trying to penetrate our southern border, you have to deal with this. when you deal with that and if we deal with it and in a way that gives people the sense that we are securing our country, then i think attitudes will change across the country where people then are willing to embrace fixing our broken immigration system. many of us have a loft ideas how to fix that. it's clear the system is broken. it has to be addressed. not some big bill that collapses under its own weight. ron: speaking of mexico the presidential candidate you endorsed who today is neck and neck in the polls and within six weeks might be elected president. he said he intends to renegotiate nafta to get a better deal for our workers. if he does not succeed, he would
withdraw from nafta. would you help him as speaker of the house, would you help him try to achieve withdrawing -- mr. ryan: i don't want to get into hypotheticals. ron: in six weeks this person could be the next president. if donald trump is president and wants to withdraw from nafta, would you help him achieve that? mr. ryan: first of all it's a pretty -- it was 1993 or 1994. there are things we can do to upgrade and improve. i think on initial energy policy there is clearly room for growth and improvement between can in a dean and mexico and nafta. i think we should have a north america energy block that could dominate the world. i do think there are areas for clear improvement in nafta. let's work on improving and not withdrawing. work on improving it. by the way, as you know i wrote the trade promotion authority law so we can get trade agreements. it's really important that we open up export markets for ourselves. 95% of the world's consumers live in the other countries not this country. so we have to have trade. the key is we have good
effective trade agreements. the last point i would say is, we're in the midst of writing the rules of the globe economy. they'll be written by someone, somebody, some country, i say it's us not others. ron: on the start of your career here in washington one of your most consistent clauses has been entitlement reform anti-budget and better way reaffirm the goal of converting medicare into a premium support structure. your presidential nominee said repeatedly we're not going to cut your social security or medicare. regardless of who is elected in 20 -- november, will you continue to push -- regardless. mr. ryan: it doesn't cut medicare. you need to know that medicare is on its way to insol van hollency. it is the biggest holcombing in the budget. so the government is making promises to people it knows it cannot keep. what we're proposing is a system that the congressional budget office c.b.o. tells us is the most effective way to save money and solvency for the program for
beneficiaries and taxpayers. our programs, reforms don't apply to current seniors. they apply to our generation prospectively. if you are in or near retirement nothing changes. we can keep doing that. we can keep that promise if we fix this soon. if we blow another presidency and don't fix these entitlement problems, and then get around to it after the boomers are well into retirement, it will be ugly reforms that pull the rug out from under people after they retired in order to stave off a debt crisis spurred by the bond markets. this is what we're trying to avoid happening. do it on our terms and we think this will make medicare better. ron: two more quick questions. hillary clinton has called for spending $275 billion on infrastructure, roads, bridges, airports. earlier this year donald trump said, her numbers are a fraction of what we're talking about. we need much more money than that to rebuild our infrastructure. i would say at least double her numbers and you're really going to need more than that. would you help a president donald trump pass a $550 billion
infrastructure program? would that be something you would help him achieve? mr. ryan: that's not in the better way. just so you know we just passed the biggest highway bill. last night we passed the water resources bill which is infrastructure for water projects. our army corps of engineer projects. this congress is producing. the most competitive rewrite of k through 12 education we passed t rewrite of our customs laws we passed. a long-term highway and mass transit bill we pass the we're getting things done. yes, we have infrastructure problems. the real deal here on that is, gas taxes aren't cutting it. we have to figure out a different way. ron: one other area that has not -- received a lot of attention, but in his arizona speech donald trump said we should have a future test for the amount of legal immigrants we let into the contry. that should be limited so that the share of the total population that is born abroad
meets -- only stays an historical average, about 10%, it's now 14%, going up to 18%. he wants to limit future legal immigration by a test of how much of the country is born abroad. mr. ryan: i never heard that. ron: it's in the speech. what would you think about limiting immigration so that we maintain a kind of certain population balance? mr. ryan: i never looked at it like that. what i always believed is you need to retool the legal system so that it fits the economy's needs. keep nuclear families intact, but transition our legal system so that visas are given to what are needed for the economy. do we have a shortage of dairy workers in western, wisconsin? we do. do we have a shortage of high-tech in silicon valley software engineers? boomers are retiring. we're going to need medical professions. nurses and doctors. even if we succeed in item number one here, get every abled bodied person out of welfare to work, there's 94 million people
who are able-bodied adults in the work force. some by choice, many not. even if we get everybody off welfare into work which is quite effective, we'll have -- a 19% increase -- we're going to need people. legal immigrants. and that means in my mind visas ought to be given based upon your contribution to society. your skill set that is needed in our economy that cannot, is not being filled by americans. ron: as you listened this year, have you heard anything you could work with hillary clinton on if she's elected? mr. ryan: we'll work with whoever wins whatever office. obviously i think with the unified republican government we can get so much more done. i'm tired of divided government. it doesn't work very well. we're just at loggerheads. we have gotten some good things done, but the big things, poverty, the debt crycy, the economy, health care, these
things are stuck in divided government that's why we think a unified republican government is the way to go. ron: keep hammering. mr. ryan: thank you, ron. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> a wall of remembrance at the korean war memorial in washington, d.c. here's some of the video taken at the signing. the bill now goes to president obama for his signature. >> this evening live coverage of the latest monk debate. tonight going to be between former house speaker newt gingrich and former labor secretary robert rice on whether donled trump could make america debate again. the munk debates are held twice a year in toronto to debate policy issues. you can watch live coverage at 7:00 eastern time. it's 4:00 pacific over on
c-span2. here on c-span at 8:00 eastern, the opening of the african-american history and culture museum in washington, d.c. president obama, first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush, and his wife, laura, and others attended the dedication of the smithsonian's newest museum. this weekend, c-span's cities tour, along with our comcast cable partners, explore the litary life and history of pueblo, colorado. >> it's the railroad and steel industry and coal industry that bring pueblo as a city to where it is today. and i think it sort of speaks to how this is a natural place to settle with the confluence of the rivers. people still keep coming back to this place because it's a natural place to build a city. >> on book t vcht on c-span2, fawn montoya, colorado state university professor and author of the bookings "making an american work force, the rockefellers and the legacy of ludlow."
talks about the deadly strike between miners and the colorado fuel and iron company which resulted in a unp lick relations nightmare for john d. rockefeller jr. >> united mine workers president, frank hayes, walks out to rockefeller's car and tells him to turn around. he says you're not welcomed here. i cannot guarantee your safety. >> then, author matthew harris discusses his book, the foundings fathers anti-debate over religion in revolutionary america. >> religion's interesting. they didn't talk about religion at the constitutional convention. in fact, one of the only things they said was, is that you didn't have to hold public office -- you didn't have to believe in the bible or some form of christianity to hold public office. >> on american history tv on c-span3, hear about the ludlow massacre which took place during the colorado coal strike of 1913 and 1914. and we'll visit the steel work center of the west museum and talk with its cureator about the colorado fuel and iron company. >> this is the shift change whistle for c.f.i.
many generations of pueblo children learned how to tell time by this whistle. >> c-span cities tour of pueblo, colorado. saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates at visiting cities cross the country. >> education and health care were also topics of discussion at the washington ideas forum. including one panel that featured the president of the american federation of teachers, randy weingarten, and health and human services secretary, sylvia burwell, who talked about the federal health care law and funding for the zika virus. this is about 30 minutes.
> i came at this the long way. mile-an-houra and i have been stan is n teacher -- from the -- is the head of the i.m.m. foundation, was a meeting we had at roosevelt's house in new york a couple years ago. et me just say this is the epitome of a public-private partnership. of a teachers union working together to help teachers. think about the 4:00 a.m. in the morning, think about 4:00 a.m. in the morning. i'm not talking about all of you who take a plane somewhere and wake up at 4:00 in the morning. i'm talking about teachers who wake up at the start at 4:00 in the morning, they have a lesson plan, they know their kids, and
they are thinking about how do i customize, what do i do? we started something called share my lesson which has almost a million users where they can pull lessons. the difference between that and watson, the teacher advisor, is that you can customize your lesson based upon the needs of your kids. and as stan said in the video, it gets smarter and smarter and senate smarter the way -- by more teachers using it as cara and jody were talking about. and mile-an-houra will talk a little bit about what technology is before anybody starts thinking this is big brother, what the technology is and what the tool really is and why we're so excited about it. >> thank you, randi, thank you for having me with you today on stage. my thanks to the atlantic and aspen institute for organizing such an important forum. it's a real pleasure to be with you. let me talk about the technology first. watson is cognitive computing. it's a form of artificial
intelligence that depends on natural language processing and machine learning. it's very different than it it nal programmable gets smeart with usage. it's a partnership between man and machine or woman and machine. to come up with the feeding of information and surfacing evidence based answers. watson became pretty famous in 2011 when it played the game know jeopardy, but it's been a lot of places since then. it's working in oncology to help doctors with cancer treatments. it's working in retail. it's working in legal and lots of other fields. we were asked how to employ that. and i represent the i.m.b. foundation. we were interested in doing something for free that would
make a contribution in the k-12 space. so we assembled thought leaders like randi weingarten and other policy subject matter experts and practitioners, teachers, deans of schools of ed, etc. and collectively we talked about this and what we were advised is that teacher professional development is an area that could use some help. there's not a lot of money to be made there. so maybe this is where we ought to focus watson. we did. we started with elementary school mathematics. specifically third grade math et-r matics -- third grade mathematics. we're already seeing the difference it can make. randy talked about how you can customize lessons. we're seeing the excitement in the eyes of teachers who say, gee, you developed this for me and involved teachers in the development and hi this all in one place and i can use it for free 24/7.
randi: both maura and stan, who you saw in the video, have incredible public school experience. when the teachers came to these original meetings and said this is a powerful tool, but let's not make this mistake that all sorts of other ed tech companies have made. if you say it's about helping teachers, it has to be about helping teachers. it can't be judgmental and it can't be evaluated. that is the tool that i.b.m. think ion and i.b.m. has about our teachers, particularly elementary school teacher. they are responsible for teaching the whole child everything in a very short period of time. and many of them have 20 to 50
kids in their class. and so the customization becomes really important, particularly these days they'll go to a colleague and say, ok, randi doesn't understand fractions. everybody else in my class does, she is not getting when there is 1/8, she's not getting the 8th. anybody have any ideas about how to help her? help me help her? what happens is, you have this tremendous bank of ideas that is in the watson technology. you not only can talk to an individual teacher or mentor or coach, but literally at 4:00 in the morning you can get a customized lesson of someone who has done that already. and that's why it starts with math in terms of third grade. and it's not judgmental and it's for free and it's going to be on a mobile app. as the teachers told you about in the video, we're really xcited about this.
maura: we cast a big net because it was important trust of the teachers. we also partner with a foundation carnegie and foverment this is a much bigger effort than the a.f.t. and the i.b.m. foundation. and we're destined to take this to other great levels in mathematics. we'll ask teachers and we'll ask our advisory committee where we should go next with this technology. it's very exciting, but remember it's exciting because we have had such an interaive process of feedback. there are four basic experiences as they are called in the watson tool. teachers can go on and look at the standards. it's important you could be an experienced teacher and know the standards well. you could be new to the grade level and not just want to read the standards, you want to know what it's about. you can come into it through a numbering system or concept. you can look for pre and post
standards which is very important as you look at this differentiation for randi who is not getting fractions and maura who is talking trigonometry, only kidding. you move over to the customization feature which is very important to be able to pull in what you think will actually help you differentiate your instruction. you can search on simple tasks that might be student facing activities like a work sheet or fluency activity. r you help with teaching strategies. we have some videos tagged to the content. but will surface up some interesting topics like perhaps third grade multiplication or perhaps how to teach to diverse learners. the tool is going to continue to grow. what's important is the content has been very seriously cure rated. so teachers won't just go and do this random search. they will trust it as the place that has the very best content, their interest at heart. randi: maura's not wrong.
so many of us learn math by memorizing equations and trying to apply them. as if our brain was a memorization bank. so when you have a tool like this to help you figure out how to teach math by thinking it through, which is what we do right now, it's hugely important. and many of us are not -- are risk adverse and don't want to actually show what we don't know. and so having this tool with other mentors is really important. i just want to end, we really want to end, you are the first people other than an article in "the new york times" that are getting an introduction to watson. it is an integrated process. we're excited about t but the reason we're excited is because teachers all across the country
right now as you are all sitting here are in their classrooms trying to figure out how they reach kids and how they help meet the needs of children. and what we're very appreciative in temples i.b.m. and the i.b.m. foundation is they are not telling us what to do. they are supporting what we do and the lathtude we need to teach. so thank you very much -- latitude we need to teach. so thank you very much for this process and term of what we have done in terms of watson. maura: thank you for your partnership. randi: thank you, everybody. >> secretary of health and human services, sylvia burwell, abc news chief white house cordsent, jonathan karl. -- correspondentent, jonathan karl. mr. karl: start with the big news. you got $1.1 billion in zika funding. congress finally got around to passing funding for zika.
[applause] secretary burwell: very excited. mr. karl: the first question is, is it enough? you guys had said for a long time that $1.9 billion was essentially to deal with this. is it enough? secretary burwell: we're happy to have the money we have. the additional money we asked for because it was important, part of that money would go towards replacing the money we had to take from ebola, which actually still is something we have to watch in west after cafment but right now what we're excited to do is take this money and continue moving forward. on making sure that here in the united states where it's -- we're as prepared as we can be. helping states like florida who have local transmission. that means the mosquito is biting people. over 100 people have contracted the disease in florida. making sure we're working on a vaccine which i think we think is the most promising solution. we're making progress. we have one vaccine already in phase one trials.
this week we announced work with corporate partners. another vaccine, it will take several to get it. and third is making sure we're working on diagnostics. this money will help us with the research. there are a lot of unanswered questions about zika. in other words, as a pregnant woman if you get it in the third trimester does it still cause the damage? while we know microcephaly is clear. it causes that. we still do not know if there is other damage such as hearing, sight, or developmental issues that may occur for children who don't present with microcephaly when born. mr. karl: how far away are we in the best and worst case scenario? secretary burwell: in terms of the best case scenario, probably 18 months. that is if all goes well. mr. karl: i have seen recent reports that are really frightening about transmission and the virus is evolving. and it may be much more easily transmitted.
secretary burwell: i think the question in terms of the transmission, i think most people don't realize in the united states, including our territories, which is puerto rico mainly, 23,000 cases of zika. already. so here in the 50 states there are over 3,000 cases. and the other thing i think most people don't realize we already had 21 births in the 50 states and territories that are children that are born with microcephaly and test positive for zika. the negative outcome we're also fear tul about we're already seeing. mr. karl: how dire can it get? secretary burwell: the question of transmission, two ways, through mosquitoes, and those are mosquitoes, two different mosquitoes, that exist mainly in southern states. but go up as far as -- there's some here in washington in temples these mosquitoes and how far they g it's also sexually transmitted which people forget. but i think the issue is what this is most dangerous for is
pregnant women. 80% of the women aren't symtomatic. that's a problem. because you could go visit one of the 55 countries that actually have outbreaks right now. you come back and don't know that you have it. then the question of either you getting bitten by a mosquito or sexually transmitting it unknowingly. that's why people who travel to these areas need to be careful for a period when they come back. mr. karl: most people watching congress go back and for the on this for months and months and months were horrified. you have this crycy, frightening, and congress unable to provide resources to deal with it. did that delay cause harm? did that set you back? secretary burwell: a number of things it did. we had to make decisions that i think were not what i would like to make as far as decisions. the first was to take money from ebola. most people don't realize we have actually within the last two months had to send a team from our center for disease
control and prevention back to west africa to make sure that we weren't going to have additional outbreaks. taking care of ebola is important. the second thing we had to do,dy in august, because we expected it would be passed before and wasn't, i had to take money from the rest of the department and things like cancer research in order to keep the efforts going. because at this point there is local transmission in florida. we need to be able to provide the help. we have teams right now in florida that are teams that are helping florida determine the cases, the number of cases. assist florida in fighting the mosquito. and those are things that we couldn't stop. mr. karl: in hindsight did the white house make a mistake in not accepting the $1.1 billion that the senate passed months ago? secretary burwell: with regard to emergencies and that question, that was not a zika supplemental. that was a zika supplemental that had additional pieces and parts that were harmful to the
issues, especially in this particular case. as you can imagine because it's sexually transmitted and because it's about pregnancy and women, contraception is important. that was a lot of that conversation. i think where we're now, and we have been working to be ready to spend this money effectively and efficiently the affordable care act, this is your crunch time. open enrollment. getting ready to start. mr. karl: what's your goal? what are we at right now? how many are in the exchanges? how many do you expect? secretary burwell: i think they are talking about the goal of the affordable care act. the marketplace is a very important part of it. the overarching goal is what we focus on. creating access affordability and quality. access the 20 million uninsured, that's the number we set in our mind and the marketplace will be a contributor to that. mr. karl: big part in medicaid expansion. what do you expect with the exchanges? secretary burwell: we're going all out this year and our open
enrollment. just this week we had a millennial summit so we're focusing on those young to make sure they know affordable care and cofrpbl is available. that's an important group to reach. we're working with partners, new partners, and work with more digital partners than we ever worked with before. partners like lyft, the new economy partners to make sure we're reaching people where they are. the other thing is we know many of the people we want to reach use mobile. none of that -- enlarging the font or things like that. working to create a product that people are going to want and make it easy for them to be able to access it. mr. karl: you have had some -- it's been a tough year in terms of the exchanges. you sawet in a pull out, united health care was in 34 states. now they are going to be in exchanges in three. humana is reducing. 30% of counties in this country? people are going to the
exchanges will be facing a single plan to choose from. secretary burwell: i think, again, this comes to what is the goal of health care in our nation? when we think about health care in our nation, 150 million people, probably most of the people in this audience, have employer-based care. that's where the vast majority. another huge chunk of people are in medicare and medicaid. tens of millions. the marketplace we're pleased with our 11.1 million. but that overall picture we learned just two weeks ago that in that market premium growth in that market we have seen five over the last six years have seen the lowest growth in premiums. in the employer-based market. we're focused on the overall health care. with regard to the marketplace specifically, most places have more competition than that. there is reduced competition this year, that's something we want to encourage more and more competition. that's why we're working hard to make sure we're attracting the people, working hard to respond to the insurance company's
concerns about the marketplace. and go in together with them how to make sure we reach more people. the other thing is, a number of players have actually expanded in the marketplace. arizona last week there were questions about a county, the company that went in actually in their press release said we look forward to have this to add to our profitability. it's a new he market. different players are having different suck sefments what we want to do is work to make sure it's a place where as many as possible to do that. they are learning. it is a transition year. mr. karl: i covered the passage of the affordable care act in congress. there is a lot more than just the marketplace. but one of the big goals here was to slow the growth of health care costs. in the marketplaces it looks like -- it seems like it's a failure. premium increases. estimated at 11%. that's if you're willing to shop and switch your plan.
kind of the best case scenario. secretary burwell: thinking about the overall and what's happening, for those 150 million people. we have had slower growth. we don't want growth at all. we need to work to put more pressure. for that 150 million slow growth. in medicare, medicare spending has been $473 billion, with a b, lower. in the marketplace itself. if the insurers had priced at the level c.b.o. subjected and did all their estimates on, it was 15% higher. in the marketplace initially insurers basically underprized for the markets they were trying to soy. that's not a criticism. they didn't have data. they didn't have information. but if you followed the line of where c.b.o., the basic growth from the c.b.o. premium to where we're now, are you about at the same point. so we probably wouldn't have this conversation if it started higher at the beginning. mr. karl: are you concerned about the possibility of the so-called death spiral --
c.b.o.'s estimates also had much higher target of people in the marketplace. higher target for the percentage that would be younger people. secretary burwell: with regard to that, one of the things -- this is one of the things about the affordable care act, c.b.o.'s estimates were based on the fact that you would see a large group of employer-based people coming to the marketplace. mr. karl: employers would be cutting -- secretary burwell: we haven't seen that. there are a number of things we haven't seen. the first thing was unemployment. we did not have death panels. we did not see unemployment rate go up in the nation. we saw it go down. that was the first thing. the second thing was we're going to see employers, what they said, dump into the marketplace. that's what caused the c.b.o. numbers to be what they were. that didn't happen. the third thing that everyone said we were going to see is everybody was going town crease
their part-time employees dramatically in order to -- to get below the numbers. and those were all things that we haven't. i will say, confident in the marketplace but know that we have many things to do to make it better and stronger. so what we want whether it's next year, more competition coming in, i think we think it's a transition year with regard to that pricing based on what happened before. and so we know we have work to do. but i think the basic of your question, are we confident, yes. mr. karl: next question. we have an election going on. you probably have seen this. what happens to the affordable care act in the event of a donald trump presidency with a republican congress? you are working on trump-proofing the affordable care act. is this true? make sure it can survive? secretary burwell: one of the constraints and requirements is something called the hatch act. my ability to talk about elections, candidates, in any
way, shape, or form in my official role can't do, won't o. let me ask you the question in a form that i can which is about the future of the affordable care act. in any scenario. the question you're asking is, can there be repeal? can we go back? the fundamental of this is, this isn't the fabric of our nation. what do i mean by that? i think most people if we asked everybody, we just did it by phone and asked everybody, do you want pre-existing conditions to be able to keep you out of your health care, whether it's your family member, you know somebody who's had cancer, asthma, anything, do you want to go back to a world that can keep you out? i don't think people do. for the 20 million people now insured, i don't think we're going back in terms of having those people once again become uninsured. for the seniors who were suffering from something called the doughnut hole which had to
do with their drug payments. there were 11 million of them that had saved $23 billion. i don't think you want to go. i don't think people want to go back to a world where you could have annual limits in your health care. 'm not a woman who delayed her chemotherapy before the affordable care act because she hit her limit. there are so many pieces and parts many people don't realize is a benefit. it's in the fabric at this point. mr. karl: walking through that. as you probably also noticed, congress a time or two has voted to repeal the affordable care act. secretary burwell: i think we're over 40. mr. karl: if you have a republican congress again and you had a republican president who had campaigned on repealing theyffordable care act, if sign it for the 40 whatever time, how do you prevent that? is it just not possible? secretary burwell: what i think is when something becomes something that could be a
reality, and let's look back at a time i'm not excited to reflect on but king versus burwell, when there was a court case we felt confident about that obviously it was a court case. what happened at that point in time when people thought, oh, my, this actually could help us. and the damage that it could cause. the votes. everyone knows in the house. which is where these votes occurred. that the president is going to veto it. when you're faced with the reality, every district in the country has lowered their rate of uninsured. mr. karl: you think republicans would blink, if there were a republican president to sign repeal, that republicans would not go forward and fully repeal it again? secretary burwell: i'm not going to get into politics. what i am going to get into what is the point of view of the american people. and you can translate that, you're much more experienced than i am in translating that to the politics.
what i will say i believe the american people will demand that the benefits and the changes made -- if we didn't even mention preventive care. when i take our 6 and 8-year-old in for their annual visits, there's no additional payment. this is because we want a system that encourages preventive care. going back from those things i just think the nation would demand that that's not the place we're going to be. mr. karl: another story that's dominated in the recent months, this whole catastrophe surrounding the epipen, going from $100 to over $600. what happened? are you satisfied that that issue has been resolved? my -- they are increasing dirs counts, etc. watching from afar, can you see this product, company gaining a monopoly and then profiting off kids who have -- could be
depending on this for their lives. secretary burwell: access to drugs and affordable access to drugs is one we think is a priority. when i talk about affordibility, access, and quality, we need to take steps as a nation to make sure we do that. one of the tools that i think would be most important that we have asked for, it does require legislation, is the ability for h.h.s. to actually negotiate. to negotiate on high cost and specialty. not all drugs. but just to negotiate in that space so we can use tools. right now last year f.d.a. approved more generic drugs than it had in the history of f.d.a. right now f.d.a. wants to help people understand how to work through the generic process. you can get faster approvals if you are a first time generic. we use the tools we have. but one of the most important tools we could gain is an ability to negotiate. hat we don't have right now.
certainly these drugs are being paid for by medicaid or medicare. in certain cases. so that's where we would have ability. mr. karl: i want to give you a chance. you have this incredible job. it's one of the most complicated jobs in the federal government. i have spent a fair amount of time thinking about the future of health care. there is so much, siting happening. -- exciting happening. in temples treatment, in temples technology. what is the most gotcha excited right now? secretary burwell: what has me most excited is we're on the path to putting the consumer at the center of their care. and that is both intervention and treatment and how we provide that. that's everything from how the system works. so that physicians are coordinating their care with a physical therapist, with others as we think about that care. to the use of prevention. to changing how we pay.
so we don't pay for a fee for service. your doctors pay for your welcome, outcome. to the prevention -- one -- : you help secretary burwell: how it works is instead of being paid -- a specific example. how we had put out mandatory bundles. think about your hip and knee replacement. your mom goes in for a hip and knee replacement. today the way it works is the person who goes to her and says take up this rug, it's paid for her service, the an necessary anesthesia paid for, but we're doing is to work together for a single outcome we pay, we medicare will pay for the episode. for 90 days. from the point that person visits to her days of physical therapy. and what it means is you pay for the outcome.
you and the team of providers you work with will be paid for a quality outcome. in the united states the variation in cost and hip and knee replacements and quality outcomes is great. so this is how we get to a place where we pay for those outcomes and that quality. mr. karl: unfortunately we're out of time. but much more time four. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> join c-span tonight for the latest munk debate. live coverage on c-span2 between former house speaker newt gingrich and political commentator, laura ingram, and former labor secretary robber reich and former governor of michigan. their topic, wlorned donald trump can make america great men. the munk debates are held twice a year in toronto. you can watch live coverage 7:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span2. and here on c-span at 8:00 eastern, the opening of the african-american history and
culture museum in washington, d.c. president obama, first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush and his wife laura, and others attended the dedication of the smith sownian's newees museum. watch the dedication tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> ahead of tuesday's vice presidential debate, we'll look back at the candidates, virginia senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence, using the c-span video library. >> i have seen this story before. i have turned on the television and seen the bad news of a shooting. or a weather emergency. or a famine. i have seen these stories. and there will be more stories. but there was something in the story yesterday that was different an it was you. your spirit of even in a dark day of optimism and community and hope -- >> oot presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not for good or for ill it sets the tone for the other branches. and it spurs the expectations of
the people. its powers are vast and consequential. its requirements from the outside and by definition impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purposes as set forth in the constitution of the united states. >> a look at tim kaine and mike pence ahead of the vice presidential debate monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch any time on c-span.org. and listen at 8:00 p.m. on the -span radio app. >> the commission that covers presidential debates has release add statement about the first debate between donald trump and hillary clinton. after mr. trump said there were problems with his microphone. it was tweeted a shot of the statement from the commission on presidential debates admitting to issues with mr. trump's microphone. the statement reads regarding the first debate there were issues. regarding donald trump's audio that affected the sound level in
the debate hall. if you didn't catch the debate live you can watch the first debate for yourself in c-span's video lie brarery. at c-span.org the next presidential debate is in nine days, sunday, october 9. next a future of political discourse in washington, d.c. congress' role in working with the next president and the need for comprehensive economic reform with former treasury secretary robert rubin. he spoke at the annual washington ideas forum which is co-hosted by the atlantic magazine and the aspen institute. mr. rubin now co-chairs the council on foreign relations. is remarks ran 20 minutes. >> thanks for doing this, bob. good morning, everybody. bob, as i'm sure, nearly all of you know, many years at goldman sachs, ultimately as
co-chairman. treasury secretary and has been vice chairman of citigroup and co-chairman of the council on foreign relations. as a native of new york city like me. so, we're here to talk about the economy and talk about politics. and it's funny. when--i have been having these conversations over the last few years i feel like they are always so dark when we talk about the economy. and now i feel like there are little bits of signs of lightness. i guess i want to ask you whether we should begin to become -- start to get more optimistic. the census report on income last year showed healthy gains up and down the spectrum. we don't know about this year, but wages still seem to be outpacing inflation. it's really hard to see economic turning points, right. and people were depressed in the early 1990's and we went into this great boom. is there any reason to think and hope that we're at the beginning of a period where we're finally going to start to see more
consistent improvements in living standards for most americans? secretary rubin: i think, david, it depends what time period we're talking about. my view would be as follows. i think that the 2015 numbers encouraging are one-year numbers. there was a federal reserve board study in may that said that something like 31% of the american people self-identify as struggling. it said that something like 45% of americans couldn't raise $400 within a short period of time if they had an emergency. so i think that the answer in terms of how people are doing is still a very large number of americans are struggling. and i think we face very serious policy issues in our country, but in a broader sense when i think, david, looking out beyond the immediate future but longer term, we have enormous strengths and comparative advantages. i think we have the potential to do very well over a long period of time. when i say very well, i think in terms of three objectives --
growth, widespread participation, and economic security. i don't think you'll get growth unless you have broad-based participation. and i don't get widely increasing incomes unless you have growth. but that gets you then to what i think is the essential and determinant factor with respect to our future. we face enormous policy challenges. the public investment. structural reform in all areas from criminal justice reform, which i think is an economic issue. as well as an individual issue for those involved. we need to overcome poverty. we need infrastructure. we need immigration reform. we need all kinds of measures to deal with the pressures being created by technological development and globalization. i think this is all doable. but it does come down to the question of whether or not our political system is going to function effectively. i believe, this will be my last observation on that, i believe that our economic future both in terms of growth and how the
broad sway of american people do, that is to say whether we have widespread income increases and economic security, is going to be absolutely dependent on whether or not our political system re-establishes sufficient functionality to meet our policy challenges. and that really, in my judgment, comes down to the question of whether congress unlike its history of the recent past, re-establishes that functionality. >> the classic thing for a journalist or someone from a think tank in washington to say the two parties need to agree more. david: i guess i would be interested in your thoughts about the fact that you're obviously a democrat. but you're not known as a left wing democrat. when i look at -- secretary rubin: probably right. depends on whose perspectives you have. david: all democrats are left wing. secretary burwell: roye a lot of people i know would say that. david: when i look at the two parties today by no means
speaking personally the democrats are right on every issue. there are issues i find the conservative arguments stronger. the democrats are a functioning party and the republicans are not. they don't want to govern. they don't want to pass things. they have just nominated really the most irresponsible candidate for president in our lifetime. what i struggle with is this question that is talked a lot about there is not symmetry between the two parties. they are both right about some things and wrong about some things. to me the problem is that we don't have a functioning center right party in this country. do you disagree? secretary rubin: i think of it differently, david. i think that in both -- i am very much a democrat. i think in both parties the more extreme elements of the party are where the energy is right now. do i think we do not have a
semtry. the freedom caucus in the house has fundamentally been opposed to governing. and that is a major problem for our contry. the question now is, who for the moment current polls hold and hillary gets elected to president, i think the critical question for our country will be, is the congress going to engage with hillary and the democrats to govern, and that is to say to engage in principle compromise, to focus on facts and analysis. politics is always very important. to make difficult decisions so that in respect to our critical challenges we can legislate. or are-s it going to be like the last six years which is fundamentally almost complete dysfunction in our system? if we have that complete dysfunction, i think we'll pay an ever increasing cost for it. over the longer run if that continues i think we'll languish. to the contrary we meet our challenges, as i said, i think we can do very well. i don't-dirnl' not licensed to
practice politics, but my instinct is -- hi a debate once with jim baker, and ended a debate once by saying you're not licensed to debate politics. i said you're right but i happen to be right on this issue. politics changes so rapidly in america. it is true. there is a certain asymmetry at the present time. but that could change. depends what happens. david: in the past it's been flipped. you know hillary clinton. how optimistic are you that you talk about the six years of virtual paralysis. how optimistic are you that a significant portion of that stems from failures by the obama administration and that she can do a better job than they did, and -- or how much, a third option, do you think there wasn't much more the obama administration could do to forge compromise wean we should be pessimistic she'll be able to. secretary rubin: i do think
having to be critical that senator mcconnell at the very beginning said what we're going do is do whatever we can to oppose this president. that's not a good way to begin a new administration if your objective is to govern. but i think she's going to be terrific at reaching out. i used to know her pretty well. in the two years i was in the white house i had -- my office was three offices away from hers. spent a lot of time with her. i think she's terrific. she's smart. she's a progressive. i call her a pragmatist with progressive values. i think the question is will the house, assuming the house remains in republican hands, which poll suggest as high probability, will the house engage with her to govern? i think that is the critical and dispositive issue with respect to the longer term future of our country. it will make a very big difference in the short-term. we have a slow recovery. yes, 2015 was good -- favorable.
substantial improvement in terms of as you correctly say, wages increasing at all levels. but if you look at 2016, you look at the data, and also you look at some of the fed reserve study i mentioned, i think fundamentally we're still at a period of very sluggish wage growth. most americans not participating in the growth that is taking place. and i think we -- a lot we can do about that, but while you can do some things by executive action, fundamentally we need legislation. david: when i was philadelphia in cover the democratic convention this year, i was struck by how many signs there were that said no t.p.p. there were hundreds and hundreds of signs about the pacific trade deal. i think there is a fair debate to have about whether trade has been more harmful to people than the washington consensus has acknowledged. i see absolutely no evidence that trade is as important, and trade deals, are as important to the struggles of the american
worker that it has taken on the significance, however it's taken on the significance. do you see any way that hillary can sign some version of the t.p.p.? or is it effectively dead? secretary rubin: i'm going to love that question to hillary and the people around her. i think there is a larger question, david. david very highly distinguished economist at m.i.t. wrote a piece which he said there is no question we're a period of transforming economic conditions. predominantly technology but also globalization. in addition to contributing to growth is also creating serious pressures on wages. and serious pressures on jobs. i think in response to that we need to meet our policy challenges. some of those the conventional challenges we talk about. we need public investment. infrastructure, basic research, etc. question how you pay for it, deficit funding or various otherways, is a debate that
needs to be had. we need streckturel reform in all areas. for example, fair laws with respect to collective bargaining so workers can make their choice on a level playing field. immigration reform. criminal justice reform. overcome poverty. we need to -- i think we need to have some sort of a framework that applies -- benefits versus costs to our regulatory structure. and so much else. and if we do all that and we absolutely need to address our intermediate and longer term fiscal trajectory which are unsound and in many ways very risky for our economy and for our working people. but if we do all that, david, then i think within that context, we'll be addressing the wage pressures and the dislocational wage pressure, you will, and job pressure, that trade and far more importantly technology have created, and it could change the attitude toward