tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 12, 2014 12:00am-2:01am EDT
lisa l. trerotola karamo baba trerra michael angel trinidad francis joseph trombino gregory james trost willy q. troy william p. tselepis jr. zhanetta valentinovna tsoy michael patrick tucker lance richard tumulty ching ping tung simon james turner donald joseph tuzio robert t. twomey jennifer lynn tzemis john g. ueltzhoeffer >> and my father, sugiyama.
dad, thank you for always being there with us. please stay at our sides forever. and to all of japanese people and my little brother in japan -- [ speaking japanese ] never, never, never forget. this is my prayer. [ applause a >> and our cousin, paul, who would have been a grandfather for the first time this year. paul would have done a great job with his granddaughter, danielle jean, and my uncle, too, john monihan, who our family hasn't been the same the past 13 years, but we carry on with his spirit. thank you to all the first responder who is sacrificed so much that day and continue to protect us and the u.s. troops who protect our freedoms at home and overseas. god bless america.
[ applause ] tyler victor ugolyn michael a. uliano jonathan j. uman anil shivhari umarkar allen v. upton diane marie urban john damien vaccacio bradley hodges vadas william valcarcel felix antonio vale ivan vale benito valentin santos valentin jr. carlton francis valvo ii pendyala vamsikrishna erica h. van acker kenneth w. van auken r. bruce van hine daniel m. van laere edward raymond vanacore jon charles vandevander
frederick t. varacchi gopalakrishnan varadhan david vargas scott c. vasel azael ismael vasquez rond j. -- ronald j. valk arcangel vazquez santos vasquez peter vega sankara sastry velamuri jorge velazquez lawrence g. veling anthony mark ventura david vera loretta ann vero christopher james vialonga matthew gilbert vianna robert anthony vicario celeste torres victoria joanna vidal john t. vigiano ii joseph vincent vigiano frank j. vignola jr. joseph barry vilardo
villalobos hernandez sergio gabriel villanueva chantal vincelli melissa anne vincent francine ann virgilio lawrence virgilio joseph gerard visciano joshua s. vitale maria percoco vola lynette d. vosges garo h. voskerijian alfred anton vukuosa gregory kamal bruno wachtler karen j. wagner mary alice wahlstrom >> and my brother steven weinberg. steven, it's been 13 years, and although you're not here with us physically, there are times when we can still feel your presence. know that you have not been forgotten. your family and friends continue to keep your spirit alive through their memories, dreams,
and loving thoughts. thank you for watching over us, steven, from your big matchbox car in the sky. >> and my uncle brian christopher novotny. you are not forgotten. aina elizabeth vanil gabriela waisman wendy alice rosario wickford courtney wainsworth walcott victor wald kenneth e. waldie benjamin james walker glen wall mitchel scott wallace peter guyder wallace robert francis wallace roy michael wallace jeanmarie wallendorf matthew blake wallens
maytal. l. waller john wallace jr. barbara p. walsh jim walsh jeffrey p. walz ching huei wang weibin wang michael warchola stephen gordon ward timothy ray ward james a. waring brian g. warner derrick chistopher washington charles waters james thomas waters jr. patrick j. waters kenneth thomas watson michael henry waye todd christopher weaver walter edward weaver nathaniel webb dinah webster william michael weems joanne flora weil michael t. weinberg
steven weinberg scott jeffery weingard steven george weinstein simon weiser david m. weiss david thomas weiss chin sun packwells vincent michael wells debra jacobs welsh timothy matthew welty christian hans rudolf wemmers ssu-hui wen john joseph wenckus oleh d. wengerchuk peter m. west whitfield west jr. meredith lynn whalen eugene michael whelan adam s. white edward james white iii james patrick white
>> and my uncle emilio p. ortiz jr. i love you and i miss you. on behalf of our entire family and all your friends, we love you and we miss you and we'll never forget you. and to daniel lopez, we love you and we miss you too. >> and my godfather, kenneth. i wish you were here. i wish i had more memories of you. i wish every time i look at your picture that you would be there. you were my number-one fan. everyone misses you. emily and i miss you the most. and you are never forgotten. [ applause ] john sylvester white kenneth wilburn white jr. leonard anthony white
malissa y. white maudlin a. white sandra l. white wayne white leanne marie whiteside mark p. whitford leslie a. willington mark p. whitford michael t. wholey mary catherine wieman jeffrey david wiener william j. wik allison marie wildman glenn e. wilkinson earnest m. willcher john c. willett brian patrick williams candace lee williams crossley richard williams jr. david j. williams david williams debbie l. williams dwain williams kevin michael williams louie anthony williams louis calvin williams iii john p. williamson donna ann wilson william eben wilson david harold winton glenn j. winuk thomas francis wise alan l. wisniewski
frank paul wisniewski david wiswall sigrid charlotte wiswe michael r. wittenstein christopher w. wodenshek martin phillips wohlforth katherine susan wolf jennifer yen wong su chan steve wong yin ping wong yuk ping wong brent james woodall james john woods marvin roger woods patrick j. woods richard herron woodwell david terence wooley john bentley works martin michael wortley rodney james wotton william wren john w. wright neil robin wright sandra lee wright jupiter yambem and my father robert james crawford. they say time heals all wounds, but obviously all of us here know that's not the case. there's ha hole in my heart that
can never be filled. and my biggest regret is that you never met my children, your grandchildren, sophia rose and robert nicholas. >> and my brother and friend and the funniest man you could ever meet. dennis michael edwards. >> john d.yeminicky sr. >> vikki yancy. matthew david yarnell. myrna yaskulka shakila yasmin olabisi shadie layeni yee edward p. york kevin patrick york raymond r. york suzanne youmans jacqueline young barrington leroy young, jr.
jie yao justin zhao ivelin ziminski michael joseph zinzi charles a. zion julie lynne zipper salvatore zisa prokopios paul zois joseph j. zuccala andrew s. zuckerç igor zukelman and my brother alan palmer. i miss you, it's been a long 13 years. >> and my brother, kevin joseph froley. i miss you, baby brother. watch out for us all, especially baby nephew, nicholas. love you. >> you're on. >> peter brennan.
kenneth j. swenson. sandra c. taylor. paul a.tegmir. and our brother, charles anthony murphy. and my loving sister, it's been 13 years, but for us, it seems like yesterday. you're sadly missed by all, especially your family and friends, including your mom, marta brazil and we'll always be the wings my wings. >> good job.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the pentagon will hold a farewell parade and ceremony nor outgoing armed services committee chairs in the house and senate. senator carl levin and mccain kuhn are retiring tend of at the term. we'll have live coverage tomorrow. and then former u.s. ambassador to syria, robert ford, will take part in the discussion of the threat from isis.
live coverage from the center for american progress begins at noon eastern. >> up next on c-span, debate for iowa's third congressional house estate. democrat stayi faces david young, and then a bree view of the upcoming u.s. supreme court term. then later, conversation about national security with the director of the non counter- -- national counterterrorism center.
seat in iowa's third congressional district, which covers the southwestern part of the state. democrat, staci appel, who served in the iowa state senate, is running against republican david young, former chief of staff to u.s. senator chuck grandsonley. the winner of the race replaces tom latham, who is retiring. this is courtesy of iowa public tv. [applause] >> welcome this is iowa's third congressional district, stretching from central iowa to the missouri border and the missouri river, too. that includes des moines, council bluffs, and creston, red oak, shen unanimous dough, and atlantic. republican tom latham is not
seeking re-election so make it one of the 44 open seats in the u.s. house of representatives. democrats hoping to reclaim the seat are pinning the hopes on staci appel, form state senator, serving from 2006 to 2010. republican david young has not held elective office but has capitol hill experience as senator grassley's chief of staff. mrs. appel, mr. young, welcome to this special edition of "iowa press." and you're familiar with our format but we're in a different sitting here in council bluff. the audience has agreed not cheer during the debate, and we're following our regular iowa press format, that means no debate rules, meaning no opening or closing statements, just ideas and issues. i'll be moderating and questions
will be coming from political journalists, "des moines register" columnist, kathie obradovich. and okay henderson. let me just say, mr. young, and mrs. appel, before we begin, we're producing this debate on september 11th, the anniversary of 9/11. there are half massed flags flight throughout the nation today. i'm wondering, mrs. appel, where were you on 9/11? >> well, i happened to be feeding -- when i found the news i was feeding my third child on our couch with my two-year-old son sitting beside me. >> how has 9/11 changed your life? >> well, i think it's made us more cognizant of the whole world, and knowing it's -- it is a dangerous world, and i remember today we were -- i was writing this, two kids into school and we went by gray's lake and the flags are all over, hundreds of flags there, and it
was really literally moving to think of all the lives lost that day and the families that were left behind, and the first responders that went in there. >> mr. young, where were you. >> sitting at my desk on capitol hill in an office, and i saw the first glimpse of all of this on live tv at my desk, and someone called over and said turn on the tv. looks like someone has flown into the world trade center, and i saw that. right the second one hit you knew there was a problem. >> how has it changed your life. >> you want to live every day to fullest because you never know when it could be your last day, and you want to make sure your family and friends know you care for them. >> start the questioning with kay her denson, 13 years and terror jim still exists. president obama announced he is
authorizing air strikes into syria. mr. young, do you think congress should vote to authorize the strikes or do you think the president has the authority to do as he has done. >> the president has outlined the war powers act of 1973 that he has those powers and you hear many members of congress acknowledge he does have. i think congress needs to buy into this, to be consulted for authorization, appropriations, because when the president and congress work together on issues, especially such as this national security, it's very important. i think congress needs to be involved. >> how would you vote, were you member? >> well, i don't get classified briefings or have that intelligence information, but i would make sure i was on the floor and listening to the debate at ever moment. >> i'll turn to you. how would you approach this as a member of congress and do you think the president has the authority to act on his own? >> i think he has the authority to act whenever our home lean is
threatened. i think we are threatened with isis. i do believe the way that he has put forward the airstrikes, and the humanitarian aid, and working with folks on the ground, makes sense, and the training. so, i approve of how he has done it. >> she mentioned working with people inside the state of syria, mr. young do you agree that it's a good idea to arm and train people inside syria? >> we need to make sure we know who we are arming and what side they fall on. you know, when the president spoke last night, for months he had been indecisive. i saw some resiliency last night. the talk about not just the meaning or managing the crisis and talked about destroying it. i was happy to hear that word finally. i thought it was long overdue. >> one final question on this
subject. one congressman said it's hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are in syria. he is concerned about that component of the president's proposal. sounds as if you do not share those concerns. >> die share those concerns. we need to make sure we're arming the right people and working with the right people. we need to work with people that want to defend their own freedom, and so that takes time and working and listening to the folks on the ground. >> you mentioned a security interest for the united states. the president last night talked about the -- there have been threats and that the isis might pose some future security threat to the united states. do you think that is sufficient american interest to get more involved militarily in that region? or are there other interests as well involved here. >> mrs. appel. >> isis is growing, and it's taking over two really weak
countries, and we need to make sure. i look at is as a mom. i want to make sure my homeland, my skate, my family -- my state, my family, is protected so i appreciate what the president is doing. >> mr. young, do you feel like american interests are sufficiently represented in this action? there is going to be another -- there is enough of a threat, actually 0, to the united states to justify this, some are there other interests in the united states that the president should be paying attention to? >> well, the threat is big and getting bigger and getting larger, and isis is on the move. they're looking to overtake baghdad. i believe they want to go south, from the news report is heard and read, they wanted to grasp control of the oil fields in the middle east. imagine if they harness that and what chat could do to the price of gas and the pocketbooks of americans, to our economy. more importantly, these terrorist thugs are trying to come to america. there's global terrorism here.
we're getting reports about it. we need to be vigilant overseers and here. >> you were in congress what would you urge. >> urge the state department to revoke the passports of those who admit they're part of terrorist organizations. our state depth has that authority. right now they're not doing it. they're guying gissing it under the game of religious freedom. that's an seward to me. >> mrs. appel, what would you do if you were in congress securing come needs to make sure what we're -- >> what would you be urging? >> i would not be urging taking away their passports. i think we need to make sure we work through the system and look through it very diligently. >> let's move to -- from being the world's policeman, if you will to perhaps being the world's doctor.
there's an ebola outbreak in africa. mr. young, what role should the u.s. play in outbreaks sun as this? has there been not enough done to curb the threat of a pandemic? >> this is so new, this pandemic, that it could possibly be. right here in our backyard, across the river, in omaha. there's a biocontainment unit and there's a patient there with ebola. it's kind of unnerving, it can be, because what happens if this gets out? i believe we need to push forward with a vaccination as fast as we can. the fda has a role, the cdc. we need work with other countries as well and expedite this. >> does congress need to provide more money for those efforts? >> if they're asked, possibly. i'm not sure there's been a request. >> you said it's unnerving for the doctor to be over the river, over in a hospital in omaha. is it inappropriate? >> i don't know if it's inappropriate because i think probably the best treatment is
right here in america. >> same question to you. what sort of role should the u.s. play in these horrific outbreaks that are occurring elsewhere, they haven't yet reached our shores. >> it's a humanitarian effort. huge. we have the best scientists in the world here in our country, and coupled with that, that's what we should be working on. >> what about the fact that the doctor, who contracted ebola, was flown here to the midwest for dream? are you fine with that? >> that doctor is a u.s. citizen. he should be here. we should be taking care of him. his family wants him taken care of. >> talk about the u.s. role in health care around the world, but health care here in the united states still hasn't been entirely sorted out. what is your position on the future of the affordable care act act, obamacare. there are things in the law you would like to fix? >> of course there are things that need to be fixed. >> such as? >> it's everybody's right to
have access to health care. i think that there's great things within the affordable care act. making sure that big insurance companies cannot take away your insurance coverage just because you have a preexisting condition. i look at it as a mom, thinking about a child being diagnosed with leukemia or cancer, and then being told the next day that no long deer they have coverage. >> you have the opportunity to congress to fix this law, what is it that you think would need to be fixed. >> one of the things is you were told you could keep your insurance coverage, you should keep it. another thing we should be able to do is, with medicare, we should have been able to negotiate drug prices just like the va does. that would save billions of dollars. but what we shouldn't be doing is repealing it. i traveled the country for the state for the last 15 months, never had one person say they want to repeal the law.
what they have said is we need people who want to fix it. i think it's atrocious we have spent 50 times trying to repeal it. we should spend 50 times trying to fix things and work together. >> mr. young, a lot of republicans have said, repeal the law. i think you said repeal and replace. correct? what is it that you would replace obamacare with? >> i think it's a bad law. i thought it was a bad process. very partisan process. i wish this could have been a bill, a law, that both sides could have come together, and would have been vote on in the senate and house. but it didn't, and so we're stuck with it. >> before you go on, do you think it's fixable or does it have to be repealed and start over? >> well, when the president delays parts of it, it's hard to tell if we'll ever see what comes into play so it can stand
on its own merits. but we had president who said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. like your insurance, you can keep it. your health insurance premiums won't go up and we're seeing the reverse of that. it's hurting relationships between employers and employees, between doctors and patients, and you wanted solutions. >> yes. what are the solutions? again, just it start with repealing or can you fix it. >> it won't be repealed as long as we have this president. this is he keynote law and it's going to be there for the long haul. i would have dropped those barriers around the state lines so people could shop for insurance across state lines, much like they do for car insurance or home owner's insurance. we need price transparency. consumers need to know what they're paying for before they go to the doctor, before they see their provider and not wait to see the sticker shock afterwards.
>> did you favor the expansion of medicaid which was included in the obamacare? >> it seems to be working in iowa, i and would make sure in regard to medicaid, states have some flexibility. >> mrs. appel, medicaid, should it have been expand. >> yes. >> expand it further. >> if need be, we would. >> let us turn to what occurred in washington, dc last october. the debt ceiling vote and runs, such as yourself, mr. young, decided, let's push this, try to get president obama to capitulate in regards to the affordable care act. should you become a member of congress, would you tie future votes to raise the debt ceiling to some other issue or would you vote on a stand-alone prospect of raising the debt ceiling? >> well, first of all, you have to take a look at how we got there. we're not doing budgets.
we're spending money -- it's out of control, and i've outlined budget principles such as auditing the federal government so we know where the waste, fraud, mismanage it, duplication so we can cut the programs. sunsetting legislation, a baseballed budget amendment. when it comes to the debt ceiling, over 40 times in the past 30 years there have been other items that have been tied to the debt ceiling, and i think there's some opportunities where you would -- could add that. maybe it's the keystone pipeline. maybe taksim my fix indication. we're -- simplification. we're seeing corporations going overseas. it would be healthy to get something out of this for those not in favor of raising the debt ceiling. >> ms. appel, should you become a member of congress, would you vote to raise the debt ceiling? or would you say the credit limit has been reached? and also address the issues he brings up, times, future debt
creel votes -- tying future debt votes to other issues. >> i think we need to work on where the money is being accident how. when i was in the state senate, did the government dish became chair of state government, and i -- we worked with democrats and republicans, the senate, the house, managers of departments, employees, citizens, and we found ways to stave money for the iowa taxpayers -- >> that sounds to me like you wouldn't be in favor of raising the debt ceiling without some cost savings being in that bill. >> what think is we have so much gridlock and people that are elect that are not working and they're not doing their jobs, and they need to sit down and work together and do their job, so we're not coming to a shutdown. they should be working to do their job. that's what we need to elect. >> speaking of spending money, there are a lot of infrastructure problems in this
country, and not just potholes but problems with the electrical grid, all kinds of infrastructure. mr. young, if you are in congress, what priority would you give to infrastructure improvement and would you consider any sort of revenue such as the gas tax increase to help pay for that? and have the users pay for it? >> well, for roads and principles, the gas tax isn't do it anymore because we have so many vehicles not fueled by gasoline. you he the electric, propane, natural gas. so we need have a long-term solution, be creative and make sure the users of the other vehicles who are using the roads and bridges pay a user fee. >> what is that solution? is it toll roads or -- >> i wouldn't go toll roads. i think it would be something in the line of a gas tax, compared to how much fuel they put in their vehicle, or maybe by
whattage. i don't know. but we need to have the -- need to not kick this can down the road. the highway trust fund is depleted and then throw our hands up in the air. >> ms. appel, would you raise the gas tax to pay for highway repairs across the nation, and are there -- what other commitment would you nuke repairing infrastructure in a time when bugs are tying? >> i do not support raising the gas tax. our middle class iowans and their families cannot afford taxes. in the third district we have some of the worst bridges and roads that need to be fixed. this is a budgetary issue and it's a priority, and we need to start making it in the budgets. >> every dollar spent in washington is red ink do you borrow to pay for infrastructure repairs knowing there would be jobs created in doing the
repairs. >> it's something you have to sit down and look at the budget, line item by item and make clear priorities, and this is a priority. infrastructure is a priority in iowa. >> what catty is saying is something else has to go, so if you going to devote mow to infrastructure and roads, you're taking it away from something else or going deeper in debt. >> i think you have to sit down, look at the budget, and find your priorities. that's what we did in the state senate. every line item by line item and found ways we had priorities and effective efficiency we can find. >> you wouldn't raise the gas tax. i forgot. what did you say about the gas tax? >> the gas tax alone, it's not doing the job because we have so many other vehicles out there. we need equity with the other vehicles out there using the roads and highways. >> would you be in favor of raising the gas tax if need be, then? >> we need to have that debate but our state legislature needs to have that debate as well.
>> the united states senate passed what the called a comprehensive immigration reform bill. the house did not act. if you are elected to the house, what sort of immigration plan would get your vote? >> one that protects the border first and form most, and secures -- foremost and secures the border. the senate bill gave the del aggression of authority to the department of homeland security to certify whether or not that border was secure. i didn't trust this president. i may not trust any other president to just have somebody willy-nilly in a buricracy say it's secure. congress needs to visit the border and vote on whether it's secure or not, and we need to make sure we reform our legal system. if a challenge we have, problem we have, but we live in the greatest country of the world
still, and we had to mutt a human face on this, people coming over here to better their lives and i understand that. and i believe in the guest worker program as well. >> do you either fault or favor the business community's effort in regards to passing immigration reform? do you think there needs to be more workers brought into the country than the native born? >> depends on how our economy is and the need for workers. the immigration levels that we let in, you may have to match those up to what our up employment rate is or what the needs are for certain workers. >> ms. appel, immigration reform, president obama has delayed what was rumored to be executive action on his own to address this issue. if you become a member of congress do you think that congress should act instead of prithee president? >> i think congress should act, and we had a bipartisan bill that is sitting on speaker boehner's desk. it increases the border control
by over 22,000 individuals. it creates the dream act. also buys a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented workers. we have a piece of legislation ready to go. what we need is people that want to do the work. need to do the work that is in front of you. >> you think president obama has the authority to act on his own in this regard or do you think congress needs to set the policy? >> congress and the president need to work together. right now we have a congress that does not work. and we need to change that. >> mr. young, what about the undocumented young adults, children, under ten years old, some of them, coming to the united states over the border and trying to find either relatives here or a place to live? should iowa or in some way, the federal government, be involved in finding them a place to live and. >> well, you have to put a face on this. these are children, and they're separate from their families in
central america. it's heartbreaking. you see the video and pictures and hear the stories, but i know this to be certain. i do believe that governors need be notified when these children are dropped into our state or any state. and i want to make sure that these kids are taken care of. there's health needs from their open needs, as well as could they have some communicable disease that could be harmful to the public. >> i hear you saying humanitarian things. do i hear you saying, let's take care of them, they're here, let's take care of them and settle them and find them a place to live and not send them home? >> i want to match them up with their families in central america and make sure they are with their families, and i think we also need to lean on our southern neighbor, mexico, to lean then on their southern boarder to make sure their borders are secure. >> mrs. appel, send them home or resettle them here. >> there's a process. we need to find out how they got
here, why they came. are they refugees? iowa as hauls been very welcoming to refugees. >> are you? >> i am: if they're true refugee status. i'm a mom. i can hardly imagine how hard it must be as mother to send your child over miles and miles -- >> i'm hearing from teachers and parents some communities, and they're saying we have enough needs to take care of in our municipalities and schools to take care of our own children and it's another layer of burden. so it's hard to make sure everybody is taken care of. we need to take care of our children first. >> i asked that question because you're seeking to identify yourselves to third district congressional voters, and as you're seeking to do that others are running commercials doing it for you, negatively. we have a couple of those commercials. mr. young, first one about you.
>> i can't wait. >> after 20 years in washington, david young says, i've seen the lugly in washington, dc. i've been caught by its trappings. >> caught by its trappings. maybe that's why young wants to give more tax breaks to big corporations and billionaires and pay for it by slashing funding for schools and eliminating the departments of candidate education because david young got caught up in washington and never worked for iowa. the democratic congressional campaign committee is responsible for the constant tents of this advertising. >> mr. young, that was a comment made on iowa press. >> you bet. >> you were a guest on "iowa press." the operative afraid -- phrase, i've been caught by its trappings. that's the phrase. now, that brings up the question, are you campaigning as a washington insider? i know the system so i can get things done? or are are are you campaigning n
outsider that, send me there and i'll change things. >> first, can i comment on the commercial? i find that laughable you. see these attack ads, words are parsed out of paragraphs and sentences. i have seen wbc up close and it's ugly, and you can get caught in a bureaucratic massive big government maize, trying to penetrate it. there are traps sometimes where you're banging your head against the wall but you find ways to be create give advocate on behalf of iowans and i have done so and i i have worked day in and day out, being on the phone with iowans, hearing their heartaches and problems and exclusions-being in meetings with them, seeing their tears, the irs is coming down on them. and that's why i want to go to washington. >> mrs. appel, those opposing your candidacy want voters to know some things about you, too. >> when your family makes its
budget, what are your priorities? the mortgage? groceries? when staci apple voted to spend your tax dollars she voted to spend $120,000 on decorative flower pots at the capitol and spend $80,000 to repair an organ. her spending priority are offkey. the republican national committee is responsible for the advertising. >> mrs. appel, you catch the drift there. and it's big spending. flower pots. you said you would set priorities, spending priorities. yet the commercial says she spent money for flower pots and repairing organs. >> this is a negative ad. they try to take away from what my record actually is, and the smaller parts of it. my record is about creating preschools for every four-year-old in the state of iowa, re-organizing state government and saving millions
of dollars, creating equal pay for equal work in in the statewe smoking ban. those are big pieces of legislation. >> are those votes, in the commercial, votes you wish didn't exist? >> it -- they both were vetoed on it. the organ was matching program with senator grassley when my opponent was his chief of staff. so, -- >> i think i need to point out, too, neither of you are paying for those negative ads against each other. they're coming from outside sources. >> you're creek. this is what is unfortunate during a campaign when you have you'd groups do this and you can't coordinate with them, can't control it. but those votes are real. that shows a contrast between me and my opponent. she voted for the largest budget in the state's history which had 0 be bailed out by federal stimulus funds, and talks about reorganization and oversight, and those are new words to me from her because she voted against the state accountability
office at the time, and we need to be watching our government every day, day in and day out, on the local, state, and federal level. >> i can respond to that? i was interested in that question about the government accountability office as well. wasn't that adding more government bureaucracy in a bill that was supposed to make government more efficient. >> yes, it was. was an amendment and i joined by bipartisanly democrats and republicans against creating an accountability office. we already have -- >> to create a government accountability office. >> the republicans -- i'm not sure which individual put the amendment forth but we already have -- and at that time we had republican audit for doing a pretty great job, and to increase government was not what we were going for. >> this is an investment. every dollar put in for account handle, you get so much in --
accountable, you have so return. i've seen the fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, whether it's military contracting or overreimburse independent the medicare program. those save taxpayer dollars and we need to save at every level. >> this is the government reorganization. we went through department by department and we found ways to make government more effective and efficient, and we also put forththat every other year we would go through in an interim and do it again. >> let me ask you this. we just heard each campaign trying to define each of you. most people who live in this district probably don't know you very well. so starting with you, mr. young, how do you define yourself? what is the person that you want these folks to send to washington, dc? >> i'm somebody who knows how to listen. i cannot be a better advocate
for iowa. if i don't know what people are thinking. my mouth is open right now but usually i'm asking questions because, washington, dc, as we have seen, does not have all the answers. i'm somebody who remembers who my boss is. i would be honored and hum belowed to be elected as congressmann, i remember who miss boss is and we see what happened when people go to washington. eric cantor just lost a primary because he forgot who he was. forgot who his boss is, the people in his district. i will never forget who they are. i'm someone who believes that the best governmenting this government that governs closest to people. >> mrs. appel, how do you introduce yourself to iowans who have never heard of you before. >> i'm a very independent thinker that has the results of getting things done for the people of iowa. i know that democrats don't have all the right ideas, republicans
don't have all the right ideas. i learned that in my service in the state senate and that's what i bring to the table. >> when you talk about your experience in -- your experience as chief of staff, your experience as a state senator, people don't have very much of a voting record with both of you. you served a term. you didn't take votes. why should somebody, mr. young -- why should somebody trust you're going to do what you say you're going to do? >> well issue can hilt the ground running and if you want to know what kind of person i am, call senator chuck grassley. he is somebody who iowans trust and he knows and they know he wouldn't have a chief of staff or any staff that he didn't trust. and so i would just add that. i can hit the ground running for iowa. we have so many challenges in washington, dc. i want to be at the table.
now who the honest brokers are, what can be done and how to get it done and i want to represent iowa and help take care of the problems. >> mr. young, that differentiates you from mrs. appel? >> i think two thing is just mentioned, a contrast in our philosophy. i like balanced budgets and i like keeping the eye on the federal government. she voted against the state government accountability office and voted for the largest budget in iowa's history. and that doesn't fare well to iowans. i hate debt. i want to take care of debt in washington, dc. >> mrs. appel, he said that you aren't for balanced budget. he inferred that. is that true? >> i don't think so. we here in the state of iowa have to balance our bug every year. >> what differentiates you from david young? >> i think that my service for the state of iowa. my background being a mom. of six, being a financial
consultant for 12 years and working with families, trying to help them with their retirement and putting their kids through college. there's a lot of differences between myself and mr. young. i would not have been for the government shutdown. he is. he wants to repeal the affordable care act. i do not. >> you said, be a mom. is that playing the card of, let's send a woman to congress? >> i think you want to send the most independent thinker that is willing to work hard for the middle class families iowa. >> would you vote to pass a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution? >> i think we need have a balanced budget that carves out for social security and medicare. >> so you would vote if it had those conditions to amend the u.s. constitution requiring a federally balanced budget? >> i do not believe i would. >> let's move on to something -- >> i would. i just add that. >> many iowaons --
>> you would what? >> i would vote for a balanced budget amendment if it allowed for -- to make sure nat wartime, there could be a possibility of busting the caps if there are emergencies, where we lad to protect our homeland, things like that, and make sure our priority was the mandatory extending. the benefits that folks receive in social security and medicare. >> the balanced budget amendment could be 20%-that would caught back social security, medicare, educationment we have to be extremely careful. >> that's why you make sure the mandatory spending is a priority. >> iowans who are watching their television sets and listening to their radios are hearing a lot of ads for the united states senate race, and in that race there is a focus on issues which neither of you have focused on tonight, social security, medicare, and the veterans administration. let's start with social security and medicare.
mrs. appel, how would you sew lit identified, make those -- solidify, make the systems solvent. >> i could keep my promise to seniors and 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds paying into the system. social security and medicare is not a goal, it's promise. the best way to shore up social security and medicare is to create great paying jobs so more people are paying into the system. and i think we spoke about medicare earlier, being able to negotiate drug prices like the veterans administration does, we could save billions of dollars. this is personal to me. my mom called a couple months ago and said her doctor wanted to put her on a new prescription but it was $1,000 a month for the copay. she says i can't afford that. i can't afford $500 a month, and i bet there's lots of other families like that across the state of iowa. >> so, beyond those ideas you wouldn't vote to, for instance, raise the retirement age, you wouldn't vote to, for instance,
require wealthier americans to contribute more above the cap on their income, pay perhaps social security taxes on their entire income? >> when i was a financial consultant, sitting at kitchen tables, we made plans with the promise of social security being there for them, medicare being there for them. >> so how do you make it solvent if you don't make any changes? >> well, just like i just said. we need to create great paying jobs for families and making sure more people are paying into the system. that makes it solvent. >> mr. young, how would you change the system? >> well, i want to make it clear we need to make sure we keep that promise and those are not entitlements. those are benefits that americans paid into. you have to ask yourself, how do we get here? if a trust fund was pillaged on wall street, like bernie madoff did, he would be thrown the
jail. but for some reason our trust fund can be raided and nothing happens. we need to do what conservative president ronald reagan did, along with liberal speaker of the house, tip "neil -- o'neill. they put everything on the table. some are saying, this is an american problem now, and then you can take things off the table i'm take raising the retirement age off the table. i would make sure we look at the wealthier americans have to forego but you have to have solutions, and i want to be at the table to make sure iowans are heard. >> mrs. appel wants to respond. >> thank you. >> it's interesting to hear my opponent say those things because he talked about privatizing social security, applauded that, and changing medicare as we know it. i think seniors need to know where he stands on these issues. >> can you quote where i said i
wanted to privatize -- >> you applauded it, and i will make sure that after -- that we'll give all of the citation. >> is that off the table for you? >> it's become such a political issue. it's amazing so many americans when they want to get a bert investment on their dollar they look tonlet funds or stocks but it's going to be taken off the table. ...
's b yes, absolutely. >> how would social security be under your vote? >> how would it be? just like it is right now. we need to make sure we keep that promise to our seniors. >> koji bayport? >> waiting to make sure we are creating good paying paying jobs are there more people paying into the system. >> good-paying jobs means setting the minimum wage where? >> $10.10 an hour. one of my first bill so they voted on in the state senate was to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour that folks that was seven years ago and those folks deserve a raise. >> the federal minimum wage? >> yes sir. >> where would you set up mr. young? >> i think it's time to raise the minimum wage. you have to do it in a way that congress is done in the past
with the bipartisan never where you make sure you are keeping in mind of small businesses out there that employs 70% of the workforce out there. it's time we need to make sure we tie it together and we need to make sure the main streets in our smaller cities here they thrive. >> give me a dollar figure. $10.10? >> $10.10. >> tying it together hard you consider small businesses that are having to pay minimum wage? what consideration would you have in the law for them? >> just reauthorize at the same way it's been done in the past whether tax incentives or tax credits for small businesses. >> are you saying it should be indexed in the future? >> i am saying that the raise with the tax credit should be one piece of legislation. >> so you want some sort of conference a package that would raise the minimum wage and also redo corporate tax is?
>> not corporate taxes, just small businesses. >> it's interesting my opponent has always been against the minimum wage until this evening. >> is this a new position for you? >> i believe i spoke on iowa press that i was open to that. >> a lot of your fellow republicans say this is a job killer. do you not agree with that? >> the cbo has says half a million jobs could be lost but with the small business tax relief is it seems to offset that sum. >> the renewable fuel standard is under debate it seems every month in the heartland and in washington d.c.. do you support continuing the renewable fuel standard and how long should it be maintained? >> i do support continuing the standard. what i do not support is the epa
meddling with it because the standard has been set into love. if it's going to changes should be done through congress. i don't have a crystal ball and i can't tell what stage a move that standard if you move it at all but probably will move sunday because i believe our industry will get to the level where we will be competitive. >> ms. appel which he maintained the fuel standard forever or do you foresee a point at which it could be removed? >> our economy depends on the renewable fuel standards. our farmers and their families have done it and so i truly support it. we need to make sure we support the renewable fuel standard here. unfortunately my opponent has stated that he wants to phase out the renewable fuel standards. >> i did not hear him say that tonight. >> he didn't say to my comments interesting. >> what about this going through congress a set of its being an
administrative rule through the epa? wouldn't be a good idea to have congress decide what standard there should be for renewable fuel? >> it would be if we had a congress that was working and doing their job. there's too much gridlock so we need to continue. iowa's economy depends on the renewable fuel standard so we need to have them continue. >> mr. young are feeling confident that ms.-- congress were in charge of fuel standards this is something they would want to continue especially considering this is a big interest for iowa. it's a priority all over the country. >> if you look at what's happening globally if you want to get away from being dependent on middle east fuels we will have to have a conference of energy strategy. we have the department of energy that we don't have an energy policy and renewable fuels me to be part of that. i will be the table to make sure it's there. >> let me ask you a comment mentioned earlier but one of the
problems with the political climate is all these ads. congress this week had an opportunity to fod on a constitutional amendment dealing with citizens united in court to open the doors to super pacs, corporate funding of campaigns, not of campaigns that campaign advertising. would you have voted for that constitutional amendment and generally how do you feel about campaign finance reform? >> when it comes to campaigns and fund-raising and the ftc i think we need to make sure we have full -- so when the citizens united case i think we need to make sure that they know who is funding what and at what level. there are voters, consumers, americans who can make a better judgment on who to vote for and who's going to stand behind it
or not. >> do you agree with the supreme court and citizens united that money from corporations counts as constitutionally protected political speech? >> i do. >> so you don't want to change that at all? >> i would like to see more transparency and oversight. >> mrs. appel would you have voted to amend the constitution to deal with the issue that came up in the citizens united ruling? >> absolutely. in the state senate i put forth two pieces of legislation to take money out of politics. there is way too much money in politics. >> what about the philosophical question, is campaign money from individuals, does that count as constitutionally protected speech or corporation's? >> i don't think a corporation as a person so i don't think there that should be protected. >> what would you do with campaign financing? he said the legislature should
take money out. how so? >> in the state of iowa there are no limits for either the statewide or federal. there has to be limits on how much people can contribute to campaigns. >> mr. young is seems as if there's a limit to some republicans tolerance to farm subsidies. at what point would you as a member of congress be able to convince your fellow republicans that farm subsidies should continue and would you also ever account separating the food and attrition part of the farm bill from that farm policy itself? >> viewers a reduction in direct payments. we need the farm bureau has -- to take a look at this and say maybe it's a good time to have this conversation. you know in the farm bill, $800 billion i think it was, 80%
of that was food stamps. another 20% was in the farm be belt. we have many iowans who are suffering, who are hungry and dependent on those food stamps. i don't like the fact that they are not asset tested to make sure people aren't defrauding the program but the best way to lower the amount of people who are in food stamps is to make sure get this economy going so they're good jobs out there. >> how would you make the argument that foreign policy should be united with the nutritional aspects of the farm bill? >> it's been a marriage between rural folks and the more urban centers of the country and its alliance that they both hold their nose up and walked down the aisle and get a pass. >> some of your fellow fellow republicans want to end that alliance. >> that's what i said. >> ms. appel at what point do you think farmers should get a
subsidy to buy insurance whereas the small business owner on main street doesn't give a subsidy to buy insurance for his business? >> the farming is so important here in the state of iowa in the farm bill is critical. it's terrible that we have three years of nonpassage of the farm bill. i have four children and we had a debate in talking about nonpassage of the farm bill and why it wasn't working in the gridlock in congress. i remember my oldest son saying mom you know you did so much for the people of iowa. you should run for congress. i'll bet you could get this fix. so that is one of the primary reasons i'm running is to make sure we break that gridlock and get things less like a farm bill. >> that includes also guaranteeing some prices such as for corned? it will be below the target price of last march and so farmers this year will be
getting payments from the government to subsidize that loss. >> are farmers need to know how to make plans for next year in the next two years. >> mr. young? >> the farming industry is different than any other and there needs to be a support system. for farmers it's like going to las vegas every day when i wake up regarding the weather. they depend on the weather and when it's really bad there needs to be support there so they can make sure they can do the right things for the next season to make sure we have feed and fuel and food on the table. >> speaking of crops there's a new cash crop in colorado with the legalization of marijuana in states around the country are looking at medical marijuana including iowa approving a derivative of marijuana for kids with epilepsy and other disorders. would you as a member of congress consider backing off of the federal laws and allow
states to make their own decisions on how to control and distribute marijuana? >> i look at it as a mom. i think any legalization of marijuana i'm not supportive of. i too have a lot of compassion for these families that are dealing with a child with epilepsy and they are saying a solution for that. i can see a pathway there. >> okay but some of the state-by-state pathways are being hamstrung by the fact that you can't transport the product across state lines. there are a lot of federal regulations that actually make this difficult. would you as a congressperson say the states know the best about what is right for them? >> i think iowa is working through the problems of the anne is going through the rule process right now.
i would let the rule process work. >> you would leave they love the way it is? >> at this point, yes. >> mr. young should the states be able to write their own destiny when it comes to medical marijuana or should we keep the war on drugs laws in place in the federal system? >> the states are doing that no matter regardless of what the federal law is so that's what's happening. i have met parents in iowa who have tried every effective therapy to help their child with epilepsy. i want to make sure they have the most safe and effective products available. if that is medical marijuana then so be it but i believe it's the function of the fda to have a role in the role in this to make sure it's safe and effective. >> candidates we don't have much time left. i want to mention the veteran's affairs administration. would you allow a veteran to have a batch or get medicare anywhere mr. young and if so.
>> i live in been made or where the iowa veterans cemetery is an everyday i pass bye bye that cemetery and i think about the men and women who serve our country. i think about what we have just witnessed with what is happening in the va program. it didn't just happen under this administration. it's been there before. we have a new director there secretary mcdonald who has given 90 days to make sure they turn things around but i believe the veterans who put their lives on the line for our freedoms they should have those benefits. >> ms. appel should you give veterans vouchers to get care anywhere and if so why have the pa system at all? >> i have sat down with veterans and they want us to fix the va system. they want us to fund the va system. they want us to streamline the paperwork. that is what needs to get fixed. we just had, the president just signed into law if you are 45 miles outside you can get care where you are asked to
travel. >> several times tonight you have mentioned good-paying jobs need to be created. with the single most important thing you can do as a congresswoman to create good-paying jobs? >> we need to make sure that we fund the small business administration and their long program. this is what creates her best paying jobs. when they want to expand their business they need to know the small business administration is funded. >> go after the u.s. tax code that is 75,000 pages long but complicates the lives of every american and make the tax certain impermanence of people can invest in the economy and create jobs. >> 18 months ago neither one of you were seeking this office. if you are elected mr. young how long will you serve? >> as long as the people want me and as long as i have the desire pretty want to get there and get things done. >> mrs. appel? >> once again i would reply the same way. as long as the people would have
me. i want to work hard for the people of iowa. >> neither one of you would say after certain period of time? >> i don't believe in a self-imposed term limits but i do believe so -- term limits or something to be discussing congress. when i serve on the board of directors i don't want to spend longer years on it. >> i would not self-imposed term limits on myself and i think elections are term limits. what you really have to think about is the federal bureaucracy government workers who works 30, 40 or 50 years and they will outlast any time. >> i. >> i'm sorry we are out of time. thank you for being with us. this is the third iowa public television special election programming. i was most comprehensive state series as we travel the state from border to border beginning at the iowa state fair with the governor's race and two weeks ago the second congressional
here are just a few the comments we recently received from viewers. >> i am a pontiac vibe owner and i got a recall on the cable leading to my steering wheel. it can affect the airbag to come out and hit me. i am nervous about it. they even put my zen number on the letter and no dealership knows about it. i just watched the television questioning of mary bera and it was very interesting but no one
is mentioning my problem and i am looking for help on this. >> i just want to comment that i have been watching -- gm started it said the gm keeps making their products and when mr. burton asked the question how many parts are out there they are still letting it go. it's amazing how the ceo cannot answer a question when they ask around of questions. so i think you all are doing a great job. >> i'm switching channels around and i noticed the gm ignition switch recall and first of all they have ms. barra on representative from gm. i thought it was over with and i
came back and found out they were now talking to the national highway traffic safety administrator, the acting administrator. to me sitting on my sofa watching this i'm seeing two people that were basically set up. and as far as the representatives asking these questions i feel so sorry for them because they are not getting the answers that they need and it's simply because there's a cover-up. gm should be fined. they have proven that they are liars. they have proven that money was more important than people's lives. in the same with the highway traffic. it's unbelievable that these people are in charge of watching over us and making sure that we are safe. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call watching watching. call us at 202-66-3400 e-mail us
at comments at c-span.org or you can send us a tweet and c-span hashtag comments. during the season in conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. there is an legal analyst talk about the upcoming u.s. supreme court term which begins in october. they discuss some of the cases the court could take up. this event was hosted by smithsonian associates. >> good afternoon everyone. my name is ruth robbins and for those of you who spent the morning at the court welcome back and those of us joining us this afternoon we are glad to have you with us. this is the portion of the program were legal experts debate critical issues raised in some of the cases the court will hear. before we begin may i ask that you please silencer cell phones? also if you can hold your questions until the end we will try to get there as many as we can but we would like to give
them the opportunity to get through many of the cases they can burst. if you want to sit up straight in smile who want to let you know the c-span is taping so you will want to look good in case you were in the picture appeared in giving you a handout with the speakers bios to leave them with as much time as possible to discuss the cases. i do want to welcome them today. our panel includes and i'm going to go in order from left to right canon who is head of appellate litigation practice willy jay is a partner at goodwin proctor litigation department and cochair of appell at litigation practice general donald -- no joan biskupic editor in charge of the legal affairs at -- solicitor donald verrilli hue represents united states before the supreme court and laurie alvino mckale who is
a partner and previous law clerk to justice ruth bader ginsburg. please join me in welcoming them and enjoy the program. [applause] >> thank you very much and is ruth said my name is canon and i am a partner specializing in supreme court and appellate litigation of the law firm of williams and connolly here in washington. it's my great pleasure to moderate today's program. i'm going to try to speak as little as possible during today's program so you can hear from this really fabulous group of panelists that we have put together to talk about the upcoming supreme court term. while we have advertised this is the preview of the upcoming supreme court term i think quite frankly that was false advertising to some extent because we are going to talk more broadly about the supreme court and in particular i think we are going to start by talking
about roberts court. it as hard as it is to believe we are about to start the tenth year of the roberts court of the supreme court under the chief justiceship of john roberts. i suspect for many of you at least have a certain generation you remember where you were when president kennedy was shot. i think for many of us who are supreme court lawyers we remember where we were when we heard the very sad news that william rehnquist the previous chief justice of the united states had passed away. i was actually watching college football at my parents house when they broke into the football game with the news that chief justice had passed away. i think for all of us in many ways it feels like it was just yesterday and yet it was now more than nine years ago. john roberts had of course heard he been nominated to join the supreme court as a replacement for sandra day o'connor who had
retired and president bush -- president bush renominated him to become chief justice. so i thought we would start with some general observations about the roberts court and talk a little bit about the supreme court term that ended in june before we transition into talking about the upcoming supreme court term. i really want to start this discussion with the solicitor general who has general who was then introduced it needs no further introduction that will provide a little bit of one anyway. donald verrilli the solicitor general is in some sense the government's chief courtroom lawyer but the chief lawyer in the supreme court. don i think in many ways you have a unique perspective to bring to the subject not just because you are the solicitor general and i have to admit i did a little bit of googling before i came over here and came to the realization that you are almost the same age as the chief justice and of course you distinguish yourself in private practice as the head of the
supreme court practice as so of course you have known the chief justice for many years versus lawyers in private practice in now with a somewhat different relationship as the solicitor general to his chief justice. i would really love to get any thoughts you might have having now argued in from of the supreme court the roberts court both as solicitor general and in private practice in having on the chief justice for many years before that. >> ken and i would be delighted to start the conversation off with a couple of observations. one being that i guess i would say the two ways in which the court, the roberts court does reflect something fundamental about the chief justice himself and one is and i get to see this because in my job i am at the court for just about every oral argument session whether i am
arguing or not. usually somebody from my office is arguing. we are up there in 80% of the cases and ago when our folks are arguing. i'm in there just about every day for just about every every argument and one thing i find remarkable about that experience is to observe how extraordinarily well prepared an extraordinarily engaged all the members of the court are in the process of deciding cases. it really is astounding. if you think about the big cases but even on highly technical cases of statutory construction that frankly most of you are paying a lot of attention to we are really drilling down thinking very carefully incredibly well prepared and i do think that the court throughout my time in practice i think has been a well-prepared court. i feel in some respects is reflective of the way the chief
justice himself approaches the law. the other thing i think that's emblematic of this court and i don't know how much of this is circumstance and how much of this is a predisposition of the chief justice and the members of the court but from where i said they are not afraid to tackle big issues. if you think about the last several years, the roberts court has taken on a lot of very consequential issues in the law and for the country. that doesn't show any signs of abating so i will start us off with those two things. >> is there anything in particular you can attribute that to or do you think that's institutional competence and the ability to resolve big issues or is there something more to it? >> to me it seems like a psychological disposition that this is their job. they don't look for ways to avoid the tough issues. they may get themselves into
tough issues and rule narrowly but that court in the chief justice seems to me i think they understand and they feel are responsible to take on the big issues. >> i think it makes sense to give a perspective from someone who covers the court and we have one of the best here. joan biskupic has been covering the court now for 25 years and is roughly contemporary of the chief justice. i won't say anything more than that. joan is currently essentially the legal editor for reuters and has previously covered the court for many years for among other publications the "washington post" and "usa today" and of course john has been coming to court for a quarter of a century. she has covered not only the roberts court but the court in prior incarnations.
and so i really want having embarrassed you to return the favor in ample measure i'm sure. i gave you a sense of how the roberts court difference from its predecessors and in particular how it differs from the rehnquist court both in style and substance. >> sure and it is one of the few institutions in washington that you can cover and still feel pretty young until here. [laughter] so it's great but i'm glad you first brought us back to that september 3 i believe when the chief justice died because i have course remember where i was. i had prewritten story and i was right in the middle of hurricane katrina episode. >> the chief justice had been. >> he had been sick with thyroid cancer and during that prayer term had really not been able to be there very much but i remember getting the call call. it was played on a saturday
night when you were watching a ballgame and i was probably working. the funny thing about the hurricane katrina is i remember one of our reporters being down there in new orleans and coming across it and saying we haven't had any news for days. did the chief justice really die? so anyway he was a very different kind of man than john roberts even though john roberts obviously was a protége of his. john roberts had clerked for the chief when he was an associate justice right after john roberts had gotten out of harvard law school and done a lower court clerkship. i would say i agree with much of what general forelli has said about the assessment of him but i also would say that i think he has planned a much longer game that if he doesn't have to go brought he won't. i think we have seen that in many of the rulings where they will bite off something incrementally and expand on it. the chief himself we saw him
making a few more moves toward the center and away we could have expected up anthony kenne kennedy. i think of the abortion protest case for example where he joined with more liberal members on the legal rationale reasoning abortion buffer zones in massachusetts. and what most people will remember him for so far is his key vote in the obama sponsored health care law when he swung over with more liberal justices to uphold that in 2012 argued by don verrilli. so i think he is moving slowly. he is since you mentioned it born in january 1955 so he is 59. he has many years and the last chief died in 80 or 81. he has a lot of years ahead of him and unlike justice scalia
who is barnstorming everything since his appointment and 86 the cheap doesn't go that forcefully. he is a very forceful man but he's not going that force willing to love. i would say one other thing about the coalition is building when he is with the justices on the right-wing which happens a lot in the most consequential cases. we have seen something emerge with his partner from the george w. bush appointment years and that samuel alito. justice alito took the lead in two very important cases in the last week of the term. the hobby lobby case which i'm sure we will be referring to at some point, the contraceptive mandate and here is the quinn union case. it occurs to me that if you are the chief and you are looking for conservative ruling and you want to hold that coalition together who are you going to go to? do you going to go to antonin scalia who might lose your majority for you or anthony kennedy who might move a little far to the left and it looks
like he's going to sam alito. that's the other point i would make about the court with the george w. bush justices. one last thing i do want to mention that we sought most recently and again it's a dynamic that the chief is part of and that's just the sotomayor breaking out the affirmative action case with her dissent in where she and the chief got into a little bit because she was dissenting the ruling that upheld the ban on affirmative action practices in education and that she fell she was bearing too much of the strings behind the seats of her dissent. i think we will see more of her using her first latino justice voice and i'm not sure how about will. >> that gives me an opportunity for embarrassing joan to point out that joan has a title book i'm just a sotomayor which is called breaking into the
politics of justice which i believe is coming out around the first day of the upcoming term. >> it's known as the first tuesday in october. >> the second tuesday is obviously jones book but it does raise a follow-up question which is the extent to which we think about the roberts court it's not just about john roberts because after all we have for new members on this court compared to the rehnquist court including of course justice alito as justice sotomayor and the one just as he didn't mention justice kagan. to what extent when you think about roberts court is about the new justices more generally? >> i think justice kagan is especially the one to watch. she is her youngest justice born in april 1960. she is pulling up the rear end has been quite strategic already with some of her opinions. i unlike justice sotomayor who is breaking off from the liberal camp justice kagan has been
firmly with justices ginsburg and breyer when it's a 5-4 ruling. i find her to be quite an active participant during oral arguments and so piercing with those questions. she is away even though she is on the far to the bench of being able to zip into the conversation. >> sometimes it's great and sometimes it's not so great. >> she's a very effective stylist of the rank is certainly at the chief justice in his opinion. two of them go at it a lot in majority's dissenting so i i think she's a player and will continue to be so. >> before turning to her other panels let me ask you another follow-up question. you've are to the fact of the chief justice is playing the long game and that is one of these bogus washington phrases. the first time i came across it
was in your book when you talk about justice scalia who early in his career had to play the long end. what do you think that means with regard to the chief justice? wanting a mite mean is he a moving along incrementally knowing he will likely have many are years on the court but of course he is no guarantee of what the makeup of that court is going to be and whether he's going to find himself in the majority are potentially in dissent so how do you think that factors into the psyche of the chief justice? >> i will give you two examples but it's a nice point you raise. this is all very and predictable. the chief justice rehnquist rehnquist was when has it his 80s when he got very sick so his death was predictable but strange things can happen to all of us in our lives. nobody can begin t. of this court or the composition of the u.s. senate after november or in the white house. i think we where the incremental
approach of chief justice john roberts will manifest itself is in the case of voting rights where we saw first in 2000 where there was warning shots fired by the chief in terms of intense scrutiny for federal governments voting rights policies in terms of federal authorities having to clear electoral changes and jurisdictions that have had past discrimination. the cheap and frankly the majority was on board with him on this set be careful how this is used. we are not sure whether this is still going to be constitutional into the 2000 sure enough last year and 2013 in the case of shelby versus holder of the chief got a five justice majority to effectively.this key version. i think they punted in the university of texas case also.
i think people like to people like the chief and anthony kennedy who took a more modest step in that decision knowing another one might be coming down the pike at some point so even though he can't think in another 10 years when i'm not even 70 yet i will be able to do some things. the way the cycle of cases is coming toward the court you can wait two or three years. >> with that at the risk of seeming obsessed with age i want to go to the other members of the panel and the real up-and-coming stars of the supreme court barbara bar willete jay who is the cohead of the appellate practice and gloria mcgill who is a partner specializing in supreme court and appellate litigation and as it happens laurie worked at the supreme court really right around the time of the transition from justice
rehnquist to chief justice roberts. laurie clerked in the first year for the roberts court and willie and laurie in their careers have been supreme court litigators and have really grown up with primarily the roberts court. i will leave the floor open an asset floor open as the two of you to react to what is already been said an additional thoughts you might have on the roberts court. i will start with willie and perhaps if you have any thoughts about arguing in front of the roberts court in particular that would be of interest. >> i think one change that we see today actually has almost nothing to do with the chief justice himself but it's equally significant to some of the developments that joe mentioned and that is the retirement of justice stevens in particular. what struck me was joan mentioning that we have four new justices. in some ways we almost have five because justice ginsburg plays a
role very different than she played winfrey she first came on the court when i was a law partner and when i first started arguing for the court. but justice stevens was very much a leader on the court of justices and not rise the same justices that the justices who agree to come on particular issues. p. too was as tactically savvy as a justice has ever been and i think that for a time after he stepped down there was a lot of press coverage about whether justice ginsburg would be able to step up and fill that role. i don't see a lot of news articles speculating about that anymore but it has been interesting to see what she would do with dissenting opinions. which is signed into herself? which he assigned them to other members of the dissenting group
in each individual case and i think we have seen her right more passionate dissents and deliver more of her dissent orally from the bench as a sign that this is something she feels really passionate about. she knows that when she does that it gets more attention than if it's just filed in writing. that has been one of the most interesting developments but another development and then i will pass it off to laurie has been the addition to the court of a number of justices with experience standing at the lectern and arguing to the court. justice kagan her predecessor as solicitor general had done that but justice alito served in the solicitor general's office in the chief justice himself at the number two person in the sue solicitor general's office before he became a member of the private bar arguing there. i think that influences not just how they treat counsel and their expectations of council which
are very high especially for those who were at the tail coat lawyers but also the cases they would take. to put one example on it i think you see a lot fewer run-of-the-mill death penalty cases if it's fair to call a death penalty case a run-of-the-mill case. when the court takes a death penalty case now versus then just rehnquist court often it is to eliminate an entire category of potential defendants from the death penalty rather than to reverse an out-of-control lower court. that is not true all the time but the court takes more business cases, fewer death penalty cases and of the kind they used to take in the rehnquist court. would you agree with that? >> glory i would love to get
your thoughts on the changing role of justice ginsburg and she of course the summer has done quite a few interviews in which she has talked candidly on her role in the cord in her views on subsequent matters. >> not to bring us back to age again but she has been asked at nazi and whether she has plans to retire given her age and some of the well-publicized problems she has had. i think it's fair to say than in a series of speeches may be going back almost two years now she has had every opportunity definitively refuted any suggestion that she is looking at retiring anytime soon. so i think it's fair to say that she can't have developed a stronger voice and came into her own a little bit more if that even makes sense with what the position was at the time but
starting in 2006 in 2007 when she started reading those dissents the lilly ledbetter case and the -- case it might've been the partial-birth abortion that caught her decision. they were just within days of each other and it was big news that and a justice and little lump the same justice would dissent from the bench just days apart. i think she has made clear that she feels she has to be in the role not just a justice stevens in the room but the elder woman in the room. i think she feels like she still has a lot of work to do. i wanted to touch on something. we have been talking about the transition between the rehnquist court and the roberts court and one thing i observed because i was actually in the sg's office when willie was clerking that
last term so i witnessed a lot of oral arguments that year and then i went to clerk. then it was the new chief and watching him sort of navigate how he was going to run the courtroom was interesting. he has definitely made some decisions to run things a little bit differently than his predecessor and one of those things that you pick up on almost immediately probably has to do with this history as having been behind a lectern. the chief will not spare at you until you to sit down counsel. if you dare to go past the red light he will let you finish your thought and sometimes we'll even let a colleague finish a question and let you answer it. that's something that's very different. i wondered as i was sitting there this term, which case it was escapes me but i wondered
whether he has ever regretted the loosening of the normal rules of formality around argument protocol. you do see on occasion this dynamic in particular with justice sotomayor where you can see the chief visibly getting upset that someone is either talking over another question or overstepping in some way. there was at least one occasion this past term where he felt he visibly shut it down and away where he he was trying to restore order. and i wonder if we will see this term everyone on a little bit better behavior. >> one thing i would object on a related point to that one thing this chief justice has done that chief justice rehnquist did very rarely is allocating more than
the normal amount of time for oral arguments. and a significant number of cases this year and a couple in the prior year i assume it was the chief but the court has provided for 45 to 60 minutes per side rather than 30 and from my experience that makes a huge difference. this is a very active bench and they all have their questions and the kind of compete for airtime in the argument. they are all covering up where you get the questions in and the questions aren't necessarily related to the other justices questions. so what i have found is when a decision has been made in the standing oral argument to keep it to 45 to 60 minutes the arguments just go much better. the justices are more relaxed and they get a better chance to elaborate on their points. i think it goes back to something laurie said and
probably comes from his experience as an advocate advocate. there will be situations and where it just makes sense and the oral argument process will go better if you take the pressure off. >> the chief justice has even done that on the fly on a couple of occasions. >> he hasn't said we will give you five more minutes. he said -- i said keep going. that is hard when when you were at the podium because you don't know what he's going to say okay stop now. you have to figure out should i hold this point back but in general he has been much more comfortable about it. >> willie. >> the commonality between the two observations is i think in general this is a court that values oral argument as a way both getting to the heart of what the cases about which is
not always is perfectly clear from the briefs as we might like it to be and it's our fault but also as a way of communicating with each other in a way that they don't do before cases. it seems that they do not walk down the hall. so that case is going to be argued next week what are you thinking of the first opportunities in the context of oral argument. not all the questions you hear rp really, i don't know to the answer to the same way please tell me what page it's on like some of it is more pointed, more aimed at the weakness in this case that we are hearing is axe and what is your response? i think a lot of justices have begin to use oral argument to identify probe and highlight the issues. >> that having big ben said willie i think it's conventional wisdom in the supreme cart -- supreme court bar but oral
argument alters the outcome of the case. >> that's something people say to make the other kids feel better. [laughter] >> i heard that a lot until i lost my last case in the nothing. tell me if you agree with that and if you don't disagree with that i would be interested in how you would reconcile what you just said about how the court does seem to be more solicited solicited -- ... as of oral argument. >> there there's no doubt it's incredibly useful in figuring out the weaknesses in the case of the things, the things that make the justices take intersect with the things the cases are about. sometimes the justices find in the course of an oral argument that the cases about something perhaps a little bit different than they thought coming in. i do think it's pretty rare that a justice marches and thinking i'm a solid vote to affirm and
marches out thinking boy thanks to oral argument now i'm a solid vote to reverse a note abaca wants to be the one to change that point. >> as you are standing up there says solicitor general of the united states to use bind standing up there you are thinking you have a good instinct on where the case is going to come out are generally the case is hard to call? >> i think much more the former than the latter but i think that is in part a function of the kinds of cases that the sg argues and those tend to be the big cases. they tend to be the cases in which the justices have put in the most work and the most thought and probably in many instances have the most well-developed sense of what they think a law is and should be. i will say on this oral argument .1 of the benefits of the arguments is i do think there are other cases that lawyers in
my office have argued that may not be the super high-profile cases and may be a super technical case about the meaning of statute or how one statute it intersects with another statue. it seems at the beginning of the argument the justices are not buying what we are selling and getting hostile to us but it's because they don't really understand the way statutes work and a lawyer in the office has been able to patiently work through with the court on how the statute operates and how it fits with another statue. you never know for sure but it seems two or three instances where it seemed like minds were changed about that process of education. i don't know if it's true for sure it doesn't happen in the high-profile cases. but it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of those outcomes change in those kinds of cases. >> on the one person who hasn't worked behind the scenes as a clerk but i have been able to
interview the justices over the years for various other projects. they do say to a person that matters and they have a hard time quantifying it because it is an elusive factor. first evolved as will he just said they will use oral arguments to telegraph to each other their own position for what they believe are holes in competing positions and i think we saw a little bit of what went on was referring to even in the cell phone case in the most recent term where they seem quite hostile to the idea that police wouldn't be able to search the contents of the cell phone. by then you are looked at uncertain where they would come out and it turned out they were unanimous putting in a new requirement on police cell phone searches. they do not actually talk in a formal way and i think you are right willie even informally before arturo arguments about the case and a conference on it
is typically at the end of the week. they have a wednesday conference and a friday conference on later arguments. that is one magister talking about it that i think from everything you've suggest suggest working behind the scenes the conversation begins way before they get to the conference imparted that is an oral arguments which is why why it has become so crucial for all of you who gets to argue these cases because it's so high-profile. >> john you have been given me the perfect opening to talk about the last case with the cell phone searches. as a journalist who covers the court would you describe that as the most consequential decision last term or do you think there are other decisions that will have long-term consequences. >> politically anytime we have any kind of ruling involving obama sponsored health care that's a big deal and we are saying issues with the
contraceptive mandate are playing out. we have the union fees case that could be consequential down the road for labor issues but i do think for all of us regular folks out there the cell cell phone case might've been the most important because. >> can you provide background? >> the issue is, all of you are stopped and arrested as a matter of course. [laughter] >> it doesn't look like that kind of crowd. >> do please need to get a warrant to search the contents of your cell phone and in a smartphone essentially? but the police argued is that they shouldn't have to quickly get a warrant because as a general rule somebody could tamper with the contents. there could be a lot of issues that would lead to destruction of that and it would be kind of
a routine cursory anyway. the justices by a 9-0 vote said no in usual circumstances unless there's some sort of danger or chance of death the contents would be destroyed in need to get one of the interesting thing oral arguments than during the cases he felt the justices might not be aware of smartphones. [laughter] there was a moment when the chief justice himself said, suggested at least two would carry two cell phones unless he was a drug dealer and we know for a fact or at least i know for a fact -- [laughter] justices kagan and justice ginsburg and sotomayor i know to name three happen to have a couple of devices in their purse or whatever. he got set straight pretty quickly on that probably. >> someone sent him a tax? [laughter]
>> justice kennedy who is the key voter we are always watching many of his his questions for the bench you might recall from the bench were all about police and police concerns and they seem to be very much taking the point of law enforcement. that was a really interesting ruling and so what it means is when they'll leave here today forget stopper and a reason and our smartphones are confiscated they would need a warrant to search. >> other cases that have significance from last term that people want to comment on? >> we sought a split the baby 9-0 on the rational decision in a case about recess appointments. that's another case i think of when i think of long-term locations for the future. anytime you have the judiciary talking about the limits of executive power that tends to be a big deal. it's a case that even though it
was kind of a compromised decision that allows recess appointments in a narrow window of time, it's the sort of thing that can have long-term implications. >> don that must have must have been a particularly interesting case to argue because it's a rare opportunity as an advocate to argue about a constitutional subject. >> it was a provision we talked about it in this form last year before the argument that gives the president the authority to make appointments that would otherwise require confirmation of the senate if the vacancy shall happen during the recess of the senate. the question was, there were three questions in the case and one was does the recess me in the recess at the end of one session of congress and a big beginning of the next between
those two points or can it be any recess that the session of congress and the second is does the vacancy have to arise during recess and the third being what about the pro forma sessions of the senate where they have agreed to come back every three days for a 30-second session but they weren't in a lengthy rece recess. really the case turned so much on the historical practice so there really wasn't any precedent from the supreme court and all of our countries history on what the scope of the powers and alternately the court said yes the president can make appointments for any recess presumptively for any recess and yes the president can make appointments even have the vacancy arose before the recess but no the president has to respect the senate's assertion that it's actually in session for these 30-second sessions.