the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., august 4, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable thomas e. petri to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. , ned, john a. boehner speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend peter foaland, holy trinity catholic church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: god of the unexpected, god who makes the weak strong, who makes the poor rich, who makes the dead alive again, dash our expectations as we begin this week of labor on behalf of the citizens of this country. help us seek you, not in the familiar, but in the strange. help us reach out to you, not in the comfortable but in the challenging. help us realize your justice, not in the usual patterns that can shackle us, but in the new way you show us, the way that always frees us. bless today the members and the staff of this body. may they be women and men who demand not to be served but to serve. bless, too, their work. ay it ease the burden of the downtrodden, lighten the load of the oppressed and give rest to the weary. we ask this in your holy name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: amen. pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 694, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house following privileged concurrent resolution. the clerk: concurrent resolution 112, resolved, that when the house adjourns from august 4, 2014, through friday, september 5,2014, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, september 8, 2014, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from monday, august 4, 2014, through friday, september 5, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, september 8, 2014, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee, and the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. section 2-a, the speaker or his designee after consultation with the minority leader of the house, shall notify members of the house to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if in his opinion the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a when the house adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its majority leader or his designee, the house shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution, section 3-a, the majority leader of the senate or his designee after consultation with the minority leader of the senate shall notify the members of the senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if in his opinion the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a, when the senate adjourns on a motion offered by this subsection by his majority leader or his designee, the senate shall stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and a the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, when the house adjourns today it shall adjourn to meet at noon on thursday, august 7, 2014, unless it sooner has received a message from the senate transmitting its adoption of house concurent resolution 112 -- concurrent resolution 112, in which case the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution. without objection, pursuant to the order of the house of today, the house stands adjourned until noon on thursday, august 7, 2014, unless it sooner has received a message from the senate transmitting its adoption of house concurent resolution 112 -- concurrent resolution 112, five weeks with the pro forma session. it that is legislative business on monday, september 8. band entered its third day in ohio today as toledo's mayor extended the advisory, even as the latest test suggests the city's tapwater was safe. the ohio team and from insensitive marcy kappler sent out this week. -- this tweet. this the first summit of its kind and is intended to increase business relationships with the african continent. south african president jacob zuma speaks at the national press club starting at two eastern. invest more in africa i echo you can answer that question on our facebook page. there are 400 of you who responded so far. peter says -- tom writes -- >> while congress is on august break, c-span prime time programming will reach a range of political topics and views. this includes the national association of latino officials, the conservative summit, and net s.ots nation primetime 8 p.m. eastern. >> the u.s. house of representatives voted on party lines to sue president obama over the imitation of the health care law. now the discussion over executive power and the constitution, moderated by cnn legal affairs. it is hosted by the aspen institute and runs about an hour. our first two conversations we had justice kennedy and justice breyer. my wife helen did the introductions. as rector ofrving embassies at the state department. itonight's format is a no holds barred debate on a highly controversial subject. word oft i should say a why i think this subject is so important. our constitution was written the founders were concerned about keeping the federal government small and avoiding anything that resembled the monarchy they fought against. congress was to check the power of the executive, the courts were to check the power of both, and juries were to check the power of all three. congress and the executive branch hardly resemble anything our founders could have imagined. he spends most of his time raising this money or investigating the executive branch and is thought to be doing a good job by less than 10%. congress created an very clearly and trusted to make polls. yet members of congress are now claiming the president is exceeding his constitutional authority by trying to do some things around the edges with minimum -- with immigration, minimum wage, marriage equality, climate change, and filling the vacancies of government positions that make our country run. and whether we really should be concerned about whoever sits in , running overe the separation of powers doctrine. with a highly respect and former supreme court justice dealing the, among other things, problems of campaign finance, gun control, and redistricting, it is no longer heresy to suggest that our constitution may need revision. to debate separation of powers issue we are honored to have on the left charles ogletree who taught president obama everything he knows. on the right, miguel estrada, who argued and in part won, in part lost that obama exceeded his authority and making appointments to the national labor relations board. our moderator is a new york staff writer in one of the country's foremost publications, jeffrey toobin. let the debate begin. [applause] >> thank you. hello everyone. speaker boehner says the house is going to sue the president. and can the house sue the president? >> it depends on the claim. backup. [laughter] it would be a it very difficult lawsuit to frame because of a number of legal documents having to do with the competence of the courts. mostly i think the house is going to overcome a number of cases from the supreme court that hold congressmen and senators do not have the standing to bring claims in court. they are trying to get around that by having a vote in the house and saying this is not the usual case in which someone who lost out in the process is coming in. but it is really the institution. that raises a number of issues about the extent to which the institution can claim the type of legal injury the law recognizes. usually people who come into court are claiming you took my money, you took my child. that's what the law calls an injury in fact. that is usually what is needed. the suit contemplated is the nature of, you are failing to comply with the affordable care act. popularly known by those who love it as obamacare. it is not obvious how the members of the current house are injured by the president's failure to comply with the law. it is also likely at least some of them are people who are members of the public who are injured by these things and could sue. my view would be it is a challenging case for the house to bring, even if they do have a vote. if i had to bet on a court upholding the standing of the house, i would not give them more than 50-50. >> what do you think? can the speaker, the house, sue the president? >> my answer is surprising. i would say yes. they have sued the president over and over again. i don't think they will be successful. i think he is attempting to make an important case. i think president obama is not afraid of it. he is suing me for what? doing his job. that is the debate for him -- between him and the congress. reality is the president has already been stung by the supreme court's wrist -- recent decision. they left a little window for him to do what he needs to do. i think everybody knows the president has been supporting this idea of executive power because he has been stopped by republicans for every single thing he wants to do. first term, we heard the senator say we are going to make him a one term president. he is wrong. i wish he could do better. there's a lot of things i would like to say -- see he has not done. it will be in to see whether he uses executive power for a lot of other things. not just to disagree with the palace but because he has an enormous amount of power. >> are you saying the house will have standing? they will just lose on the merits? i think the president will still have executive power. i'm not sure he is going be -- to be successful with congressman weiner. -- boehner. but people are saying let's get something done. somebody needs to do something. how can you not support anything for us in the last six years? >> i think there is always a very attractive claim by everybody who wants to do what he thinks is wise to say, the other side is not letting me. it is worth it to go back to 1789. the people who wrote the constitution said the government is best that governs the least. there was some sense for them, because for laws to be changed and made, the assumption was there has to be consensus as to what we are doing. what is happening here is less the political -- there is a new -- do-nothing congress. everybody says that when congress does not go their way. what you effectively have is a country that on fundamental questions of policy is divided 50-50. as reflected in the white house and the congress. unless they can come to an agreement as to how to meet in the middle -- they keep insisting to have 99% of their way -- nothing is going to get done. that is in the system to review can't have change unless you come to an agreement. the minority was intended to have the ability to slow things down until there is consensus. >> let me talk about a specific. as the planned lawsuit is being discussed, the core claim is going to be the affordable care act says the employer mandate takes place and is supposed to kick in on a certain day. this administration delay the day. we all know how the republicans feel about obamacare. their claim is the food in this restaurant is terrible and the portions are too small. [laughter] do they have a point that the law says there is the state. the president changed it. how can you do that? >> i had the flipside of the reaction that professor ogletree had. it is difficult for the house to get standing. if they manage to get standing, they most likely would win if the court was to consider that money merit -- consider them on the merit. the president says, i will not do that. that is usually unlawful. things of that nature usually get set aside by the supreme court all the time. two months ago, the supreme court slapped down the epa where the statute said you should regulate if the polluter issues more than 100 tons per year. the agency says, that is not reasonable. the court said, you cannot do that. if the congress says you have to do it on these terms, you can't put it to the side. on your point as to whether this is terrible food and we want more of it -- the people should be entitled to experience the laws of the country as passed by the representatives. that causes bad effects or people don't like them, that is why we have congress. we can change them. but you can't simply say you past something in a rush and you are going to fix it on the fly by disregarding what the statute says. >> what about that? >> we have had debates in congress as long as we have had congress. on both sides of the aisle. as much as we think this is a troubling time, we had to deal with the bill of rights. detection for women. this president is doing what others have tried to do. move the ball forward and say i'm going to do some things. some of the things he has proposed are good for america, even though people are opposed. i think because of his politics, because he he is a democrat. he is going to try to make sure things are going to happen. he is going to wait for the court, if they are going to overrule what he is doing. let's think about the affordable care act. this is not new. every time we have, up again, this has been important. room for 1993 -- remember 1993? they called it the larry care -- hillary care? >> whatever happened to her? >> she is running for population. she will be the first woman elected president. even though more than 50% of our population is women. i think there is no question people are enthusiastic and supportive. my colleague and friend, senator elizabeth warren, is also a great democrat. someday she will be president. my secret candidate is somebody not on the ballot. the great smart billion person i had,, the honor of teaching -- brilliant person i had the honor of teaching, michelle obama. >> you heard it here first. what about the business -- there is a law that says you have to do this on such and such a date. he is delaying the law. is that ok? >> yes. >> why? >> he has the power of his executive our -- power to do what needs to be done. he is trying to make the affordable care act -- people call it obamacare, i call it obama cares. i think it will help the american people. there are a lot of people against it. i think the reality is even though people who are poor, rich, have a lot of problems with this president, he has tried to do a lot of things internationally and globally and nationally and locally. hopefully a lot of that will happen going forward. >> let's talk about recess appointments. did you want to say something? >> i don't mind going to a pep rally for the president. >> into any recently -- been to any recently? >> the fact is, if there were a private person who were employed by an employer who was accused by the president of providing a mandate. see i work for somebody who would be entitled to coverage except for the postponement, that person clearly can sue. he can say the president has delayed the obligation of my employer. he has standing and a bang up claim on the merit. you can't say, as the answer to everything, the president has executive power. yes, he does. one of the executive powers is to make sure laws are faithfully executed. when congress says this has to be done in a certain term, he no less than any other citizen has to comply. >> isn't very doctrine of law that says, as the supreme court said two years ago, affordable care act was affordable as a tax, the irs has the authority to delay the imposition of taxes at their discretion. isn't he delay in the obamacare employer mandate an exercise of that? >> two answers. first, no on the general point. the power to tax is the house of representatives. there's a statute that gives him the way -- gives some leeway to the administration. whether that covers the situation is an interesting issue. it says the treasury has the power to issue needful regulations. the question is whether this was needed. or whether this is the enforcement of the act. i would think neither of those things is true. >> let's talk about recess appointments. this is a wonderful relic of a different time in american life. the recess appointment came in in the constitution in the course -- horse and buggy era. congress was out of session and they could not come back -- >> for eight months at a time. >> the president had to do many things including fill vacancies. they gave him this power. why would a president be using a recess appointment now? >> because the resistance from republicans to anything he is trying to do. it is something the people of the country want. the majority want some affordable care in one sense or another. even the polls -- people watch jimmy kimmel. i watch him and fox news. i get a lot of information from fox news. the thing about it, he did a survey. how many people would like the affordable care act? everybody was against it. how many people like obamacare? no way, we don't want it. the president did a poor job of explaining what the affordable care act was. when it was going to be implemented, how much it will cost. it is something we have been trying to get for this country for a very long time. it is a costly and confiscated thing. but i think it is a necessary thing to make sure people can find somewhere to get medical care for their family. i think that is a salute to this person who was trying to do something against the strain of people were saying politically you cannot do it. >> let's talk about recess appointments. miguel argued -- i have to say, miguel and i are law school classmates. this is one of the great arguments i have ever heard by miguel in the supreme court. almost as great as his socks. what was the issue? >> let us back up. the constitution has for these purposes two rules for how you go about naming federal officers. the general rule, this is what you do all of the time, it says you cannot appoint somebody to be an officer of the u.s. or a judge or a high-ranking government job unless you get the advice and consent of the senate. that can be difficult, i am here to tell you, since i was once nominated by a president and filibustered seven times. but that is the system we have. if you don't get the senate to agree, you do not have an appointment. the next one says when the senate is in recess, you can appoint temporarily until the next session of congress. that is the exception. it is unusual to say you get to involve the break glass in case of emergency part of the constitution when your reason for doing it is not -- under the general rules, they are entitled to do that. if you don't get them to agree, you do not have an employee -- appointee. this may be viewed as obstruction by some. it is what the constitution says. you have to get the senate to agree. the president got frustrated because he could not get the nlb fully staffed. it is true that many of his appointees were not timely confirmed. but that wasn't really the case with his recess appointments. the folks had not even had their questionnaires into the senate. the senate was coming in for what the synod called a session every three days. what happened that the session was the senator in charge of the chamber that day, a member of the president's party, 40 seconds later they would level the senate out of session. nothing was done in these sessions. the president said you are effectively on recess. you are not confirming my nominees. name people. he was chance to -- challenged by a company. ira presented some people who -- i represented some people who were also challenging. i forget the exact number. i think 44 randomly selected members of the senate. >> it was all the republicans. >> we when -- one on the d c circuit. the circuit said the appointments were unlawful because under the original understanding of the constitution, you could only appoint somebody if the vacancy had arisen in that recess. the only recess that counted was in between formal sessions of congress. i had argued more narrowly, by the way, steve, i made more narrow arguments. i only argued the senate is not in recess. the court was unanimous. there was nobody who believed the president had this power. the two people he appointed did not vote for him. who said, this is an unlawful appointment. they district -- disagreed with the d c circuit. it was not that the recess be kept out of the clause. it was not necessary that the last person to occupy the office had left during the same recess. that actually in many ways is a huge victory for executive power. allows for the income you and -- incumbent occupant. >> if the d c circuit had prevailed? i think it is safe to say the recess appointment power as a practical matter would have to spirit -- disappeared. it is not gone that presidents can use this, but they have to use it in narrower circumstance then president obama. >> what the court said was the senate has the keys to this power. they can choose to go. if they choose to stay by coming in for three days and having a 42nd session, is good enough -- 40 second session, that is enough. if they think they are not in recess, the president does not have this power. this is a question that may vary attending on whether the president's party is in power. if the president -- republicans control the chamber, there will never be a recess. the democrats could in theory force a recess. this is probably more than you need to know. most lawyers have not heard of this part of the constitution. the senate has to come in every three days, because it cannot be away for longer without the consent of the house of representatives. if he senate wants to have a recess and the house does not agree, the senate can vote for the recess and the president gets to adjourn houses of congress. which has never happened. >> it can happen. what is clear is a lot of people have not read the full constitution or what it says. the whole idea was a battle -- balance of power. they went the supreme court to decide those issues when there is a complex. very few cases actually make their way to the supreme court. they are trying to figure out what to do based on what is right for the people. i think all these little clauses are what any president has to look at. that is going to be very clear in terms of what a recess appointment can be. the question is what kind of recess appointments can you do and what kind of hoops you need to jump through. >> mcgill made a reference to something which is a big heart of the story. -- big part of the story. there are various ways of counting. the filibuster rule in the senate is you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. there are 55 democrats now. is the filibuster constitutional? >> i think it is. i think you make bad laws when you start to say, let me change the number now. because it is damaging to my side of the aisle. that is not the way to decide law. the majority can control -- we cannot do that. >> the filibuster is not in the constitution. >> the practice, and mcgill told you -- miguel told you -- >> i think the filibuster is absolutely institutional. >> -- constitutional. >> it makes clear the senate can discuss and debate and agree and disagree. they can decide who can be appointed. it is a series of appointments. >> the constitution says each house of congress shall be the judge of its own procedures. but -- source of constitutional authority for each house, they can have quorum rules. there's a case from the 19th century where the quorum rule actually applied was the presiding officer could send me sergeant of arms into a nose count of anybody on the ground. the supreme court said, we get to do that. that was one of the cases they said it -- they cited insane even if the senate is coming in for 40 seconds, they get to do that. >> you both agree the filibuster is constitutional and necessary. has it been abused by the republican or minority and president obama's term? is that one reason why these fights have arisen? has there been an abuse of the filibuster? is that why he has made these recess appointments and other actions? >> the answer to your first question is yes. it has been abused. i don't think you can get rid of it. that would be contrary to what we believe as a productive government. even senator harry reid who reduced the number for confirmations to 62 less than that, that was part of the power he could use as a sinister. -- u.s. senator. it will be interesting to see what happens in 2016. that will have a big determination for what happens to our country. i think that it's going to be -- make a big difference. >> mcgill -- miguel? >> i take issue with the question. i don't think it makes sense to talk about abusing a procedural rule three if you accept that things cannot happen unless you have 60 votes, the point of the rule is to not have things happen unless you have the consensus of 60 people. it is almost anti-common sense to say a rule you can do something -- maybe it is basic literacy. >> you don't think -- do you agree with him? you think it has been abused? >> do i think it has been abused? no. >> moving along. a related question is whether the resident has to defend laws that have been passed by congress. you have the justice department which says, we defend the laws on the books in a highly celebrated case. a law passed with overwhelming support in the house and senate signed by president clinton. >> in his defending marriage state -- >> the c-span audience will love that. >> he has already served his term. >> is it appropriate for the justice department as it did in this case to say, we will not defend the defense of marriage act? >> the answer is yes. is not this is a snap decision. eric holder has been an effective attorney general. his point is, i need to enforce the law and get opinions from people who are smart. he has a staff of lawyers. tell me what i should do. doma was an act that does not make sense from his point of view. that is why he got rid of it. he has been much more powerful in what he has been doing. the idea that people with non-violent crimes for drug offenses should be reduced instances. -- in sentences. we should not take away the right of people to vote to read -- to vote. he is trying to do things that robert kennedy did and other attorney general's. they are saying the court is not acting, the people are not acting, these decisions have to be corrected. >> what is the law? how does he get to pick and choose? >> he decided that doma was not an appropriate expression of the law. the thing about where we were, if we were to ask people 40 years ago, can we have gay marriage? people would say, are you crazy? can blacks vote 60 years ago, no. these things were a clear sense about what you could and could not do. at some point the attorney general who has two of -- has to enforce the law and decide what is correct -- he is one of many attorney general's where the legislative body held him in contempt. he is trying to enforce the law as best he can. giving these circumstances he has. he is understanding that america is changing. a different population than it was before. a very different form and interest. >> mcgill -- miguel, what about that? >> its deal with the general question. the constitution sets forth the oath that the president has to take. the oath he has to take his support and defend the solution. test the constitution if a president believes a law is not constitutional, he has to comply with his oath and not defended the law. when he comes to that conclusion, the has to notify congress. whether that construct works in this specific context is a little bit of a harder question. most presidents take very seriously the notion that they are relying on their own independent conclusion as to the constitutionality of a law when they refuse to defend it. therefore the justice department, for decades, has taken the view that even if the incumbent executive does not agree with the statute, they will defend it so long as the justice department can think of arguments that will support it. one of the famous examples is the first president bush did not like the cable act of 1992 when it forced the cable companies to carry networks. it was not to be a violation of the first amendment -- it was thought to be a violation of the first amendment. all similarly it was -- ultimately it was fought in the supreme court and upheld. there are many cases where the president comes to the conclusion he has doubts about the constitutionality. he has policy differences with the statute. in those cases, the rule has been you defend it if you can think of arguments a court would accept. you owe that to the legislative ranch. that one is unusual. it would be difficult to say at the time that the administration could think of no would -- arguments accepted by the supreme court that would result in the statute being upheld. it is sort of in a relevant question now. whether or not, because the administration declined to defend it or the president was right along, the supreme court held that it was not constitutional by a vote of 5-4. that could be because the president declined to defend it or he was right on the merits. it is difficult to know. >> let me ask you a general question. the text of the argument that is going on now is present obama -- president obama has been unusually aggressive in the use of presidential power, whether in his executive power to in effect impose the dream act, in terms of immigration. offering waivers for no child kind. that is related to global warming in the epa. has he been more aggressive in the use of executive power than other recent presidents? or this -- is this merely be span of his political adversaries? >> it's not spend. -- spin. he has had to face a congress that would not support things he thought was of interest. he has used in the act more than he should've, i think. but a president has to do something. you can't sit there and nod your head because congress has not done anything. people need jobs, education, housing. all these things. they need a president to do things the legislature has decided not to do. he has been good about doing those things, even though you -- there are areas i think where he has crossed the line. >> where? >> i'm not going to tell you in front of the television audience. >> miguel, where does he stand in the hierarchy of use of presidential power? >> the truth is all presidents try to be very muscular about the use of executive power. this is why talking about issues by executive power in the abstract is best done by extrapolating from the incumbent all the people that are saying, today, the incumbent is trying to do his job. when bush was having the imperial presidency -- if you go back in history, fdr had to do lend lease. which was not lawful because he could not get around congress. presidents have always tried to spend -- expand their executive power. the question is not whether we like the incumbents. whether we would like to observe the structural protections of because solution that say the executive, whether you like him or did not vote for him, has the power to do certain things. i don't think he is unusual. i think he is as pushy as other presidents have been. he is if anything a little bit maladroit about picking legal fights. he picks those that are most likely to get shut down by the courts. if you put out a inflexible deadline on the theory, because i can, that is not likely to fly. so he is doing but presents -- what presidents always do but somewhat less adroitly. >> who has a question? right there in the middle. are we doing microphones? i picked someone in the middle to make it most difficult. can you pass the microphone? who is that? judge? >> judges not going to touch this. >> this woman, and then we will get to this gentleman next. this woman here first. >> one thing you said about the justice department and eric holder, you thought he was effective, and in the case of -- that was one of the first times i saw president obama say he had heard about it from watching television. >> what is the question? >> the fast and furious. >> was the question? >> i want to know why the justice department did not investigate that. next question was about the internal revenue service and lois lerner. the justice department investigating that. >> ok. thoughts? >> people -- fast and furious is one of the wonderful things that could only happen in the government where somebody thinks they can make inroads by giving guns to drug traffickers in mexico. this was, government does dumb things all the time. this is why the framers of the constitution wanted very little of this. the president came to be aware of this. there was a question about whether the attorney general had been aware of it. some in the congress viewed his answers to that question is not being adequately responsible or his having not adequately explain himself. that is why the house held him in contempt. i don't want to single out the attorney general. again, when a house of congress is controlled by the other party, there is a lot of close inquisition into the practices of the administration. i think this one was so remarkably dumb that it did deserve an investigation. other people may disagree. all give you lois lerner -- i will give you lois lerner. >> the question involved the use of the irs against political enemies. that is the accusation. >> this always happens and is never good. it is a serious problem that all of us face when you are investigated not because you have done it crime but just because they have access to your information. as far as fast and furious goes, that was a problematic decision by eric holder as well. i would not have authorized. it. i understand what he thought he was doing. it was a great idea that went bad. it is almost as bad as the first thing he said the first week he was attorney general. he said americans are cowards when it comes to discussing issues of race. president obama said, wait, don't say anything without my approval. eric will still say what he thinks he has learned and what needs to be done. a lot of interesting things have happened. people focus on the bad things he has done. i think his attorney general has done a lot for this country in the last x years. -- six years. i think he will go down in history as somebody who pushed the envelope to make sure justice applied to every single person in america. not just those who are wealthy or employed. those who are well-known. some of the poorer people in the community. >> sir. >> my question, back to the filibuster that you spent considerable time discussing. at one time, it required 66. then it dropped to 60. we know majority rule is important. major laws have been passed by one vote. in your opinion, would it be helpful if the senate would drop it from 60 to 55? you would still have a majority and the power to stop things. it might speed things up. >> harry reid did drop the cloture rules from 60 to 50 four lower court judges and president's executive appointments. that has led to a lot of confirmations in the past several months including several to important courts of appeal. what you think, miguel? the so-called nuclear option. >> these questions are up to the senate. this is how they think they can do business as a body. i don't think one is mrs. early better than the others. -- is necessarily better than the others. the senate cannot do business unless it does business on consensus. trying to force change without at least help or the acquisitions -- acquiescence of the minority is a bad idea. but if they come to a consensus, that is fine. >> i think it definitely has to be 50 were more. -- or more. i get reduction -- worried about the reduction to the low 50's. it will change when different people are in the senate. i think that is very problematic. >> in the back. >> we return to the affordable care act and the ability of the house to sue. the point that it is a tax. i want to ask a question about two supreme court citizens -- decisions. the lady decided that the -- is called chevron. it says unless it directly violates the words of the statute, as long as it is reasonable, that is fine. two years ago, the spring court decided -- the supreme court decided a tax case you mean the ministry said the ability, the treasury department and irs, to write whatever rules they want to write unless it clearly violates the words of the statute. the affordable care act has -- >> what is your question. >> whether or not based on the authority given to the administration, to write guidance and interpretation, is there any way the house can win that suit? >> let me take that one. this goes to the merits. you could get back to the standing question, and i think the answer to that is yes. the key to understanding why the answer is yes is that you have a little advocacy in your description of the chevron case will stop what the chevron case says as we do a two-step analysis. we first ask if the statute speaks to and whether congress had an intent. if congress had a particular intent than the agency has no further role because the agency like the courts have to give the word of congress. if there is ambiguity with respect to that particular question in the issue, then the agency can have discretion under that isunder that gap thereby didn't of ambiguity. it is the stock in trade of federal agencies to claim there's always ambiguity. federal agencies will find ambiguity in a no smoking sign. [laughter] courtst is not how the go about doing it. it's a good the chevron issue ask if there's an ambiguity as to the choice of the date, then the administration could win that. the taxe other parts of with respect to the enforcement of the tax law, one can fairly quibble whether the taxg to enforce loss. >> secretary chertoff, also one ofjudge will stop >> the justifications you sometimes hear from the administration on some of these controversies, and it is reticulated or any immigration area where the decision to identify a category of people who will not be deported and the president has indicated who will be allowed to stay at least temporarily, one of the arguments made is that the president gets to have enforcement priority, so he can decide how he wants to allocate enforcement. i want to ask a hypothetical question. let's assume you have a conservative republican resident and says we have taxes that are way too high. he says i'd like to cut the top rate from 39% to 10% and congress says no. maybe there's a filibuster or the houses in democratic hands. does the president have the right to use his enforcement power to say to irs i don't want you to collect anything more than 10% of the amount of money owed by people when they file their tax returns. would that be a legitimate argument for president who says i'm trying to save the economy and i'm going to use my enforcement discretion? [laughter] >> i would love to have that hypothetical in class because i think every student in my class, conservative republican or democrat liberal and say this person has lost his mind. i think the reality is i don't think it'll work. i think it has no chance of working. >> i just wrote about ted cruz. --made a very similar point what if the environmental rules congress asked are way too draconian, so i'm going to cut unilaterally or increase the amount of discharges into the rivers that are allowed. mike's example? surface it sounds silly but that wolf comes as a wolf. that's what the president has done here. recall that the consequence of not complying with the deadline and the deadline is applicable, you have to pay money into the treasury. what he has effectively done is laway congress passed a that says if you don't do such and such, you have to take money into the pressure. it's not that different from this case. it is only a slight exaggeration of this case. >> a couple of more questions before we go? the gentleman right there with the blue shirt all stop it's very hard to see. first -- very well. >> whoever has the mike griffin owns the -- whoever has the microphone speak. has anyone in constitutional law try to rank presidents on of these power and tried to decide whether there are more democrats were republicans and abuse of coordinatedwer and littleth people who have personal interaction experience. >> yes, it has been done and a lot of people who have been criticized for the use of executive power were republicans will stop i thought what they were doing were very important when he think about abraham lincoln and people like that way before we were born, but the whole idea is i have to do this because it's going to be important for our society. i think that makes sense. i've said it thousand times you can decide a president she --cance after he or there have been no cheese but we hope there will be soon, until 30 or 40 years after they served all stop that's going to be a time before we get to that. >> and how about the man in the blue shirt. >> she just failed to give me the microphone. you recognize me. my question deals with legal reliance. if i am a citizen or business and administration chooses not to enforce a certain set of laws and therefore i take actions that are in conflict with the books believing it's not an issue because the issue is not enforcing it, what would be my legal exposure to a successful toinistration that uses enforce the laws on the books retroactively? >> tough question. >> it's actually not that tough flavorsp there are two to this question. number one is in the civil conflicts, when you're not paid taxes you would have otherwise paid because the incumbent administration says you shouldn't, by the time the next administration comes in and changes it and they try to get the taxes from you, they are within the statute of limitations, which is a big if coming up to pay the taxes. with respect to any other enforcement action, and i'm thinking about arnold if you fail usually to do something and reliance that tends to negate the state of mind necessary for criminal liability. if you were otherwise to be prosecuted in the criminal court for failure to comply with the law, you would likely get an acquittal just on the theory that you lack the state of mind necessary to violate the law because you act in a way that we are not doing it. that's usually not a defense to the payment of money in taxes. >> you are a good lawyer. that is impressive. i did not learn that much law in law school. somebody over here? even if it true that congress were to be able to obtain a judgment against the president, they would nevertheless not be able to enforce it because they would have to go to the executive branch for the enforcement and the executive ranch would refuse to enforce that in which case they could get another judgment against them that they would refuse to enforce. ultimately, is the only real check against a president who fails to uphold the law impeachment power? isn't that the way it's supposed to be? >> two answers. and an excellent question it is highlighting in a dramatic way why the courts every reluctant to get into abstract fighting between the branches of government. that's why they would be tollenging for the speaker convince a court they have standing because -- this is a in theou will love -- doma kay's coming a question of standing because the administration had not defended the decision of the supreme court and the question is whether any number of people from congress could. filed a dissent where he made exactly that point. he said what if they don't comply with the judgment. what would happen is the houses of congress would be required to look into the weapons of their arsenal. that sort of hypothetical tends -- if the executive does not comply, the house does not comply and i have to result to the weapons they had all along. >> you to have been somewhat surprising in your willingness to consider the lawsuits. bynow we are over time raising and issue that was raised at the hearing yesterday -- if you agree the house of representatives can sue the president of the united states, can you envision a scenario where the president can sue the house of representatives? >> you are making reference to the hearings that happened yesterday. conclude one house would sue the president, he would have envision circumstances where the president with an sue in his official capacity to force official action by the house of congress will stop again, i'm not trying to three judge the merits of a lawsuit that has not been filed, i think everybody understands -- people on my side of the aisle tend to believe the merits question is very easy because it is a calendar. 2014 does not have a lot of ambiguity to it. consider a driven to theset fully understand cases can be very challenging to bring to court. scenario the the president suing congress? >> i think the president can sue. i think it would be unwise and very problematic. be in a terrible state as a country to have the president suing congress. there's a good reason for it but it means we've lost all sense of justice when it comes to treating people equally. i can tell you this -- i have known doubt in my mind if the president decided to see whoever he or she was would find great lawyers like you have on this panel. they would charge. it would not be pro bono. >> it depends on who the client is. >> ok. me in thanking our guest will stop -- our guests. [applause] >> today, president obama is turning 53 years old. no public events of his official schedule but he will be getting a daily briefing and meeting with treasury secretary jack lew. the president celebrated his birthday on the carl -- and the golf course with childhood friends from hawaii. members of congress just starting their recess, many in their home districts, others traveling. rick crawford treating -- tweeting he's going to deliver with ups in the first district. the trucks passed inspection and they are on the road. angus king says he will be interest in to congratulate the owner of a farm for being a small business administration award recipient. and corker is in vietnam with reports theirho visiting the hanoi hilton prison where john mccain from arizona and u.s. pows where had -- were held during the vietnam war. messagesheck out other if you go to our twitter page. there are still plenty happening in washington d c. leaders are meeting for a u.s. african summit -- the first of its kind aimed at increasing business relationship. we will have comments from south african president jacob zuma at 2:00 eastern time right here on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators" three members of congress talk about their technology education. >> i believe in an open internet without government intervention. this is all being done in the private sector. >> why would they not want their team exposed? fcc took the first move and will vote at the end of this year. but we believe the nfl will follow suit. tries to carry carriage rules, basically giving people a level footing when being able to negotiate with broadcast and negotiate with providers. it puts people on a level playing field when it comes to those kinds of negotiations. >> new york democratic represented ryan hagans and colorado republican represented of cory gardner tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span two. since before the civil war, people have been gathering at fancy farm in kentucky for community meetings and the event has turned into a made to meet politician. this weekend was the fancy farm picnic and senator rand paul who was considering a presidential run in 2016 was there. this was held on the grounds of saint jerome catholic church in fancy farm, kentucky. they held five minutes speeches and came to us courtesy of kentucky educational television. >> thank you. silenceave a moment of for a poll him? once was a woman from kentucky who thought in politics should be lucky. so she flew to l.a. for a hollywood bash and came home and a flash with buckets of cash. to liberals she whispers cold makes you sick. in kentucky she claims cold makes us sick. to the liberals she sells her hate the same ones who kentucky coal. true, onewe know is thing we know is guaranteed, she cast her first vote for harry reid. grimes reald pledge is to obama, her first vote is to read. as for kentucky, if that happens, it too bad indeed. a limerick,re only i wish it were a bad dream of stop but i'm only worried, i'm kentuckyried that could select our next senator. does anyone want hollywood to pick our next senator? dollars are flowing from the west coast and environmental extremists who are trying to kill kentucky jobs are bankrolling the grimes campaign. imagine the nightmare if grimes were elected. her first vote for harry reid. any would effectively kill initiatives to protect kentucky jobs. years, senator mcconnell and i have proposed getting rid of the overzealous regulations of the obama administration. kills every one of those but she takes the first vote for harry reid and killed any chance of ever recreate -- resurrecting the kentucky coal industry. want presidentre obama to pick our next senator? president obama did not try to trick us. he was quite explicit. he said he would anchor a coal and he's doing everything he can to get it done. it is happening before our very eyes. just travel to the coal country and you see this despair on the faces of those who are unemployed. do you want a supporter of obama and reid to be your next senator? if, god forbid, ms. grimes were elected, her first vote would be for harry reid. that what -- that vote would kill any chance of us ever trying to protect those kentucky jobs. votevote for grimes is a for the obama-read agenda. cannot let the president continue to kill kentucky jobs. barack obama has one goal the scheer, to hang on to the senate. barack obama needs grimes. to stop barack obama, kentucky needs mcconnell. to implement obamacare, obama needs grimes. it,epeal and replace kentucky needs mcconnell. to continue waging war on coal, obama needs grimes. to fight back and defend coal, kentucky needs mcconnell. to spend every last dime of our money, obama needs grimes. letalance the budget, to taxpayers keep their paychecks, kentucky needs mcconnell. obama needs grimes, kentucky can't afford her and her liberal pals. kentucky needs mcconnell. to defend our jobs, to defend our values, to defend our way of life, there's only one choice for kentucky this year. mitch mcconnell. [applause] thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] excuse me just one minute will -- just one minute. [applause] i'm sorry, i just had to get one last photo of the senator before kentucky voters retire him in inember will stop -- november. [applause] and retire him they will. [applause] kentuckians are tired of the partisan bickering in washington. they are tired of dysfunctional government. of name calling. they are tired of obstructionism and senator mcconnell has been chief obstructionist for the last 30 years. [applause] it is time for a change. it's time to send allison grimes to the united states senate. [applause] in contrast to washington dc, we still know how to make democracy work in the commonwealth of kentucky. republican control the state senate. democrats control the statehouse. so we are a divided government. and yet, kentucky passes balanced budget. we have improved funding for schools. we have raised our dropout age will stop we have expanded substance abuse treatment and crack down on prescription drug abuse. we reformed our pen chances to him, protected or suzy -- our seniors, expanded preschool access. that's why our schools are ranked in the top 10 in the country. that's why we set export records each of the last two years. that is why we are number one in business growth. the scary thing is all of that cooperation come november could vanish in the blink of an eye. republicans have set their sights on taking over the kentucky house in november. right.all that's all right because republicans in the statehouse have a track record and that track record is voting against progressive government and progressive ideas. if they get control of the house, kentucky will no longer be progressing in the commonwealth of the country -- in the commonwealth or around this country. you don't have to take my word for it. look at their record. in january, i proposed sorely needed raises for our teachers. voted againstans those raises. but house democrats who control the house joined with senate republicans and past teacher raises. they need those raises. when it comes to increases in classroom funding, school safety, textbooks, technology, house republicans again said no. but house democrats who control the house joined with senate republicans and they stood up and said yes to our kids. [applause] when it comes to the new bridges we are starting to build over kentucky lake and lake barkley, house republicans voted against funding those two projects will stop but house democrats step up with senate republicans and by golly, we are funding those ridges and we will see them here in western kentucky. it comes to building i-69, widening i-65, improving the pen are all parkway, house republicans said no. but house democrats joined with senate republicans and voted for those article western kentucky projects. when it came time to expand high-speed broadband and move kentucky into the 21st century and create jobs, house republicans said no way. but house democrats joined with senate republicans and a past broadband access and we are going to create a lot of jobs in the 21st century. so listen to me -- look at the record. if republicans take in troll of the statehouse, they will try to run the state just like mitch mcconnell tries to run washington. by saying no to progressive obstructing, by being divisive, and by putting partisan politics and personal power above everything else. good for kentucky just as it has not been good for the united states of america. kentucky needs leaders who care about kentucky families. we need leaders who think that it is their job to create jobs. [applause] vote to move this state forward. that is why we need allison grimes in washington dc. we need to keep the kentucky house in the hands of the democrats. thank you all very much. [applause] >> and today in washington dc, leaders from 50 african countries are meeting for u.s. african summit at the white house aimed at strengthening ties with the african continent with a focus on african democracy and security. we will have live coverage from south africa president jacob zuma from the national press club at 2:00 eastern time here on c-span. and you can go to facebook and weigh in on our question, should the u.s. invest more in africa? a few of the responses from viewers so far -- peter says try investing in america. don't use that newspeak, c-span. the question should read should the u.s. spend more taxpayer money and africa? if you have an opinion, you can share it on facebook.com/c-span. the president of the republic of congo came to washington dc prior to the start of the africa summer stop he's oak about security in central africa for about one hour at the national press love. >> good afternoon and welcome. my name is myron belkind. i'm an adjunct professor at the george washington university school of media and public affairs, a former international bureau chief for the associated press, and the 107th president of the national press club. [applause] no need to applaud. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at www.press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speaker and all the guests of our speaker at the head table and in the audience. and i would like to just remind you that our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. and so if you hear applause in our audience, i'd note that members of the general public are attending, so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. and we always make this announcement because we feel it's important to do so. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action today on twitter using the #npclunch. after our guest's speech concludes, we'll have a question and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. when i do, each one will stand briefly as their names are announced. from your right -- one minute please. from your right, bob booth, retired former managing editor, "national geographic magazine." [applause] please hold your applause. marine lorengeti, communications lead of the government global practice of the world bank group. [applause] yaya moussa, founder and president of africa today tv, which launches its operations on tuesday, august 5th. and i'm also pleased to introduce mr. moussa as a new national press club member. [applause] mr. jean jacque bouya, minister of infrastructures. [applause] margaret ryan, north american correspondent, interfax energy london. [applause] minister moundele adelaide, the minister of -- one minute -- no, we have it right. we have before every head table announcement, we double-check everything. the minister is minister of small and medium businesses and handicrafts and former minister of trade. [applause] donna leinwand leger, reporter for "u.s. today" and vice-chair of the national press club speakers committee and former president of the national press club. and next to her, between her and the president, is claudia lambuma sassou-nguesso, who is assisting with our translation services today and who helped plan this lunch. thank you so much. [applause] skipping over our speaker for a moment, tony cerise, director of academic seminars, the washington center for internships and academic seminars. [applause] gilbert odongo, state minister, economy and finance. [applause] heidi shoup, president and ceo of the world affairs council of d.c. and a new press club member. [applause] nashwan talib, journalist and tv news anchor for the middle east broadcasting network. [applause] tita misok, senior communications officer of the united nations foundation. [applause] last year, the "new york times" listed the republic of congo on its list of 46 places to visit for its remarkable safaris, the world's second largest tropical rain forest, and its rich culture. but beyond the tourist attraction, our guest today, president denis sassou-nguesso, has, for many years, made stability, modernization and industrialization his priorities in the republic. economic progress in the last 10 years has led to a cancelation of large amounts of debts through the international monetary fund. that has allowed the country to dedicate larger percentages of its budget to infrastructure development than it has been able to invest in any other time in the republic's history. president sassou-nguesso's current seven year term will end in 2016. and it's his second and final term allowable under the republic's current constitution. his last term is focused on a new hope to bring peace and stability to the republic after years of unrest and civil war. in his latest term, his focus has been on the path to the future, to attempt to invest in aging infrastructure, further reduce the still-high rate of poverty, and to pursue efforts at peace-building and predicting human rights. he also has worked to resolve conflicts in the central african region and promote peace and development throughout the area. president sassou-nguesso joins us today in advance of next week's u.s.-africa leaders summit where president obama, who visited africa last summer, hopes to focus on trade and investment in africa and highlight america's commitment to africa's security, its democratic development, and its people. president sassou-nguesso joins the ranks of other heads of state to speak to the national press club, including many u.s. presidents, indira gandhi, yasser arafat, nelson mandela, nikita khrushchev, fidel castro, and mahmoud ahmadinejad. the national press club is truly known as a place where news happens. i'd like to thank the world affairs council for partnering with us today to bring president sassou-nguesso here today. please join me in welcoming president denis sassou-nguesso to the national press club. [applause] >> madam president, mr. president, i thank you for the honor you have extended to inviting me in this hallowed hall. you have allowed an african voice to be heard. the universal nature of peace and security is an insult. president franklin roosevelt had in fact spoken with such insight at the beginning of the second world war and he stated and i quote "wherever peace is broken, it is the entire world that suffers." today still in europe and latin america and in africa, people are at each other's throats. the bombs call, and they show death, desolation and resentment so bitter that time can hardly erase them. we ponder peace and security in central africa. this is a region of the hemisphere, of course, where my own country is found, the republic of congo. and in speaking to you today, i will highlight three main points. first of all, i will refer to the state of affairs in central africa in general, underscoring a number of actions undertaken by the congo in its contribution to the resolution of conflict and the consolidation of peace and stability in the region. secondly, i will evoke the multidimensional character of the security challenge in africa. and thirdly, and in conclusion, i will take the liberty in the spirit of humility and friendship to invite america to deepen its links with africa for the sake of bolstering our respective interests. now, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a clear idea of the african region that we're going to be talking about this afternoon. central africa is at the very heart of the african continent. it links the north and the south. it spreads from the gulf of guinea to the great lakes region. it offers significant natural resources on its surface and underground. the tropical forest of the congo basin represent 250 million hectares. that is properly 40% of the overall central african region and constitutes, in fact, the planet's second ecological lung, right after the amazon region. now central africa includes some 10 countries -- angola, burundi, the cameroon, congo, gabon, equatorial guinea, the democratic republic of congo, the central african republic, rwanda, são tomé and príncipe, chad. all these countries represent 5 million, -- 6 million, 6 million, 500,000 square kilometers and a population of some 150 million, mostly very young people, which certainly is a great advantage for the region, one of its greatest assets. now most of the countries of central africa are at peace. but the peace is, nonetheless, threatened by the persistence of conflicts in the central african republic and to its east by that in the central african -- the democratic republic of congo. terrorism, piracy on the seas, and other forms of violence remain constant sources of concern. the deep reasons for this insecurity and conflict in central africa and everywhere in africa in fact are quite diverse in nature. let's try to run down some of the basic elements that we would have to consider -- poverty, certainly, the lack of jobs, the absence of hope in the future, the ongoing search for a means to get by, the armed conflicts that seek to exploit natural resources, a sense of injustice, exclusion, frustrations that are born of inequitable and unfair distribution of national wealth. the absence of state institutions or extreme weakness of the same. electoral problems that come from ethnocentric claims at ongoing cleavages that are either professional or religious of nature. the loss of moral and ethnic values. and certainly, world geopolitical struggles that are being carried out on african soil. so, madame president, mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, that is the background. let me now look at the security situation in central africa as i see it. first, we have the situation in the east of the drc, which has been explosive for a very long time. it is less intense than it once was, but remains fragile and requires ongoing vigilance. second, the more recent phenomenon of piracy on the seas and the gulf of guinea, which has become extraordinarily worrisome. third, terrorism that reaches from the sahel towards the south of the continent, and that has outbursts in a number of different localities. i can mention, for instance, here, the boko haram sect which has nigeria in its grip, and is trying very hard to extend its tentacles toward the cameroon and who knows, the central african republic in the next few days if one doesn't watch it. fourthly, the lord's resistance army of joseph kony that continues to be present in the central african republic, and the drc, and in uganda. finally, the social, political and security crisis that the central african republic has been facing, it remains worrisome. and this, despite numerous initiatives undertaken for peace and security by the community of central african states, the african union itself, france, the european union, the united states, and the united nations. the lack of security and grave violation of the rights of man are rampant. it is estimated that somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the 4 million citizens of central africa have been displaced because of the current crisis. despite this grim picture, let us pinpoint a few glimmers of hope. in december 2013, in nairobi, the former rebellious group m-23, which was rooted in the east of the democratic republic of congo, began abandoning its armed conflict and adopting a law of amnesty. at the same time, in the eastern region of the drc, the disarming of the combatants of the ugandan liberation army and the fdr, the rwandan rebels, is ongoing. as to the central african republic, my own country, congo, which serves as international mediator as established by the african union and the united nations, has hosted the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd july, just recently, in brazzaville, an inter-central african dialogue. this is a first step, a first stage in a process, that will deepen in central africa itself. the parties in conflict came to brazzaville and signed a treaty of cessation of hostilities, even if, as we have learned this morning, there are always those who are eager to break the ceasefire. there have 4 been a few instances of combat to the north of bangui. and a number of deaths were noted, 20 principally among civilians. these glimmers of hope, nonetheless, show the success of african initiatives towards the preservation of peace. the african institutional framework that has been set up to promote peace and security is, without question, the main reason for hope. the first element of that institutional framework that i'd like to point out is the peace architecture. the architecture for peace and security in africa, which aims to ensure the prevention of conflicts and to ensure solution of these via operational instruments that are being crafted as i speak. we're talking about an african force that stands in readiness. a second element, a second instrument of that framework is the non-aggression pact for the common defense of the african union. it was adopted in abuja in nigeria in 2005, the 31st of january of that year. this was an initiative initially of the republic of congo. and it is the first line of defense in the case of conflict. that is our last instrument. it would be a fast intervention for us which would become operational in 2015. quick mobilization where needed. beyond this institutional framework for peace and security, there are various regional mechanisms for peace and security that have also been set up. and i'd like to mention a few of these here. we have the council for peace and security of the central african estates. the pact for peace, stability and development of the great lakes region. there's also the framework agreement for peace and security in cooperation in the drc and the great lakes region. ladies and gentlemen, let me come back now to the action that my own country, the congo, has undertaken in this context. and i would like to point out here that we have been unstinting in our efforts for peace and stability and security in africa. in south africa, under apartheid, in darfur, in the sahel, in the great lakes region, in all of these places, the congo has always been present and made its presence felt in a constructive manner, in the promotion of peace and security and national reconciliation. in the case of south africa, under apartheid, i am very pleased, indeed, to see here ambassador cohen. we worked quite actively and quite closely with ambassador cohen. and i greet him, and i'm pleased to see him here. and also, the under secretary, together we worked very hard to bring south africa, angola and cuba together. we worked for the retreat of cuban troops in angola and the independence of namibia. but a few of the areas in which we collaborated. to illustrate, i will speak briefly about specific action my country has undertaken in the drc and in the central african republic. in the democratic republic of congo, my country plays the role of facilitator in the national dialogue, bringing the main political factions together. in the central african republic, the congo is contributing in various forms and fashions toward search for solutions to the conflict. let me mention but a few. amongst others, we sent 1,000 men to participate in the peace-keeping contingent cosponsored by the african union and the un security council. the congo is also the mediator as between the armed conflict and the opposing political forces. my country has also offered a loan to the central african state in order to ensure at least minimal functioning of its public administration. ladies and gentlemen, whatever the presence or the intensity of armed violence and terrorist threats, we can never forget the many other challenges that africa must face and take up in order to ensure its security in the long term. and this brings me precisely to the second main point of my speech to you today. that is, the multidimensional character of our security challenge. as independent nations that we are, most african countries are only about 50 years old. this relative youth for us africans cannot certainly excuse any mistakes or weaknesses on our part. but it is useful, i believe, to bear it in mind, in the overall historical perspective that i believe we must take. and i would like, here, to insist on the need to remember the time element, the dimension in terms of history, that our young african countries offer. the turmoil that we live, in fact, is very much the cut-and-thrust, the ups and downs of our adolescences, of our young adulthood, as it were, as emerging nations that we are. as states that are becoming full-fledge, of institutions that are consolidating, of democracies that are seeking maturity, of economies that are emerging. and so, the notion of security, i believe, must be put in a context that goes beyond the question of defense, and one that addresses the viability itself of our states. this is how i believe we must cast the matter in terms of our broader political economic and social development. in fact, as i mentioned earlier, the lack of security is often the very result of a number of problems that converge, most especially, surely, poverty and injustice. poverty is, without question, the first factor in lack of security. and all this, i think, that must be looked at in the face of the enormous challenge that africa has to construct simultaneously, in terms of our nations, of the state of democracy, of the rule of law, and good governance. surely this should urge our partners to be a little more patient at a minimum level, at least more realistic and pragmatic. and, dare i say it, a little more humble in their assessment of our young nations. furthermore, the concept of the nation-state itself, so firmly rooted in the philosophy and political culture of europe, is a recent idea in africa. here, the arbitrary manner in which the continent was carved up, following the berlin conference in 1885, and the subsequent colonization, has, in fact, turned our countries into fragmented ethnic entities. and so, dear friends, your country has two major political parties and other groups that you may be surprised our african societies have hundreds of parties. can you imagine how hard that is? how can we foster a multiparty approach while at the same time guarding against careless ethnic quarrels that can be a religious or regional origin? how can we safeguard the integrity of our fragile states and the unity of our young nations when we face centrifugal forces that stem from a mistake of clinical usage of pluralism and a mistake in the usage of democracy itself? is the burgeoning of lasting democracy something that will take time, that is laborious, that is intensive. it is something that the people themselves must carry out as they will following the rhythm of their own drum. history is full of studies of this sort. when i cast my mind back to the 1789, and i look back to the emerging french revolution under the slogan liberty, fraternity, and equality, we know that women certainly didn't get the vote. by the way, they got it after world war ii. so sometimes good things take

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Chad , Eastern Region , Eastern , Kenya , Burundi , Nairobi , Nairobi Area , Angola , Adelaide , South Australia , Australia , Brazzaville , Congo , Washington , District Of Columbia , United States , Mexico , Arizona , Bangui , Central African Republic , Nigeria , Kentucky House , California , Guinea , Hollywood , Lake Barkley , Kentucky , Cuba , Kentucky Lake , South Africa , Saint Jerome Catholic Church , New York , Uganda , Rwanda , Washington Center , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Namibia , Cameroon , Gabon , Colorado , George Washington , Villa Clara , Ohio , Abuja , Abuja Federal Capital Territory , France , Congo Basin , , Berlin , Germany , Hawaii , Americans , America , Rwandan , Kentuckians , Ugandan , Central African , French , South African , American , Cuban , Elizabeth Warren , Rick Crawford , Nikita Khrushchev , Jeffrey Toobin , Miguel Estrada , Jacob Zuma , Lois Lerner , Mcgill Miguel , Angus King , John A Boehner , Indira Gandhi , Robert Kennedy , Marcy Kappler , Margaret Ryan , Heidi Shoup , Allison Grimes , Fidel Castro , John Mccain , Gilbert Odongo , Doma Kay , Denis Sassou Nguesso , Jimmy Kimmel , Jean Jacque , Cory Gardner , Mike Griffin , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , Jack Lew , Yaya Moussa , Joseph Kony , David Scheer , Charles Ogletree , Harry Reid , Abraham Lincoln , Tom Wright , Barack Obama , Michelle Obama , Mitch Mcconnell , Nelson Mandela , Ted Cruz , Yasser Arafat , Franklin Roosevelt ,