congress by a majority vote. he has not taken a position on that. vice president biden has said, when he was asked recently, do you think the filibuster is being utilized in the way that it was historically designed? and she came out very strongly and said, this senate that i was first elected to, i believe he was elected in 1972, is a completely different senate. and he pointed out that the filibuster has been abused, and up until very recently it wasn't utilized very many times, the 112 times that i talked about the last congress. we will break that record. so he has not ruled. and the prudent thing for him, because he's going to be sitting in a chair, is to not answer that question. because he's going to have to answer it on the advice of the parliamentarian. three other vice president, rockefeller, nixon, humphrey,

all answered the question, democrats, republicans, answer the question yes, at the beginning of a congress, majority vote you can adopt rules. and that's the catalyst that we have here. . .

threshold. none of those ideas can be put in place unless the constitutional option is utilized at the very beginning of the session and so if you're interested in this reform, the key is studying and knowing this constitutional option and advocating for it and been advocating for whatever reform you believe in in the rules. jim is standing here with a look. i'm sure all of you that have questions you can throw them at us after we have a panel presentation here. >> we are going to a panel right now. after the statements from thomas scott and the senator we will go into q&a and, so let's come forward with the panel, please. [inaudible conversations] and let's give some of laws to the center. [applause]

>> well it's my pleasure to introduce this panel and two colleagues that have written about this extensively and first scott to my immediate left has written a statement some of you picked up the statement and those are few viewing on c-span and it's on the senate for american progress website. he's a senior fellow at the center for american progress to representative david o beebee beat he's got 31 years in the service to congress. clerk and staff director of the house appropriations committee executive director of the house democratic study group and head of their positions. he writes about government's, appropriations, budgeting. he writes also about the economy

and in the context of governance he's expressed himself in writing and speaking on the filibuster and other reforms. tom mann to my right is the senior fellow of governance that studies at brookings. he was director of the government studies division. for many years, 15 years. he's written a book that is irrelevant to this with norm augustine, i guess norm cannot his boxter helped with the book and it's called "the broken branch how congress is failing america and how to get it on track oxford university press." he's written almost a dozen other books, several are relevant to the functioning of congress, the permanent campaign and its future party lines competition partisanship and congressional districting. something that redistricting has had an effect especially on the

house of representatives and the nature of representation. both will have short statements. there will be response from senator udall and myself and then we will open up to the audience for questions and comments. i know several of you, i can see your faces, our experts on this topic and i will call on a couple of you that i know our experts. he's back there hiding in the back. he has the best book on procedures in congress, so walter, be prepared to ask a question. [laughter] we will get to you later. let's go to scott. >> for only about four of the 31 years i worked on the hill was lying on the senate payroll but it was allen drury's depiction of the senate and advising consent i read as a teenager that really got me interested in

politics and public service generally. in college i read mathews the centers and their world which i still think is one of the great books on american government, and that further raised my esteem from the body so i do not come at this as an embittered house staffers who is angry at the guys on the other side of the hill. i have great regard. the senate should not be the house. it should be the lifting force. it should be a force for more measured consideration of the defense and policies and i've been in situations more than a few times during my career in congress where i saw the senate may be very valuable contribution by slowing down the peace of which we were moving on issues that had not been as carefully thought through as they should have been that having said that i think there are some very serious issues with respect to the way the

senate works today. i think that anybody that is governed by a set of rules at one period of time has to review those rules as the workload on the institution changes, as the nature of the culture and the problems facing the country change. as the tide of individuals who are members of the institutions change. and i don't think that that has happened as frequently as it should, and it's one of the reasons why i think that we should take senator yuval's at fisa very carefully. the thing i think is overlooked in much of the current discussion about the senate is that while we may have strong views on things like health care and we may be very angry that the deliberation is being slowed or conclusions that we think the country has arrived at should be

ratified by the legislative body and not blocked by minority. those are all important things. i feel those very strongly myself. but i also think that those are going to be quite difficult to change. but we do not view as carefully as i think we should is the fact that the senate is just broken in a very standard workload diagnosis, and i want to go through three areas where i think that we can see that. first is the authorization process. i think it's kind of an arcane term but probably most americans don't know that we create programs all across the government through passing legislation that establishes the structure of those programs,

said spending levels but does not actually provide spending for those programs. this year according to the congressional budget office, 50% of all spending outside of the defense department -- 50% of all appropriations were for programs that are no longer authorized. the authorizations have expired. cbo identify 250 authorizations that have expired and money was appropriated for them even though there was no authorization. the leaders of the senate were basically put in a situation where you either had to terminate major portions of the department of justice or other critical activities or fund them in the absence of an authorization. the reason that we don't have the authorization is the chairman of the authorizing committee in the senate were 18 committees that do nothing but work on establishing the

structure of the from the programs. the chairman of the committees cannot get the floor time from the leadership. the leadership result of the floor time to give eckert oracle cicione cepal all the time eckert chiara i think not having the authorization is much more profound problem that might seem at first kick in the appropriations committee those that fund is so it's a problem vanocur of the authorizing committee of the opportunity to find out if this is a place and create efficiencies, are their

programs that can be combined, are there authorities these people see that they don't have an order to make the programs work better? those kind of questions are not being asked on a routine basis and the authorization process is what makes that happen and until we find a way to get the senate to go back to a system it can adopt authorizations then it's very difficult to motivate the authorizing committees in the house to move legislation that they know will die in the senate which has been what has happened repeatedly. the second area, and i think this is an area that really turns the whole notion that the filibuster is being used to give more measured deliberation is in the area of appropriations. this year of the 12 appropriation bills mine actually were considered in the

senate. three c's including the biggest of the domestic appropriations bills, the labor hhs bill was not considered in the senate. it was reported by appropriations committee in the samet but when senator reed decided there simply was not the fourth time to take up those bills the committee reported bill was taken to conference with the house and conference though the senate actually voted on it. it was then wrapped into a conference report and voted on by the senate at a point in the process where no amendments could be offered to change funding of any other programs contained. they simply had an up or down vote on whether or not to continue the department of health and human services and labor and education or not -- or not continue it. as bad as that sounds, three of the 12 bills actually never been

considered on the senate floor are subject to amendment. that's better than we've done most years for the last decade. on average over the last decade we have had five bills that never went to the senate floor but were enacted circumventing the floor because there was long time to get there. i think that is necessary to get the work done, to get the government functioning, but it is about as big an abuse of process and the rights of the 70 senators who do not serve on the appropriations committee as you can imagine. further this process means the bills that do come up cannot be considered in a timely way. the past year the house passed four bills in june, four of the 12 appropriation bills in june, the other eight in july. the senate passed i believe to

bills in july and passing bills of the senate floor through september, october, november and december, so what that meant was that the final bill was not enacted until late december. we were almost 25% through the fiscal year that we were providing agencies with money to operate in. what that meant was that one, the agencies had to go on a restricted budget between the time that the fiscal year began and the time that the appropriation was actually put in place. that meant that agencies that have regulatory responsibilities had to come back the troubled of the people that perform those functions. it meant that the program officers, the grant administrators and government agencies had nine months to 12 months' work. again, that may sound like a pretty lousy record. it's better than we've done most years in the past. several jurors we've given agencies only six months to

spend 12 months worth of money. that means that they have to restrict their contracting process. you can't go through the full free and open bidding contract and do it in six months' time. you can't get it published in the federal bridge street, you can't take the awards and have them reviewed. so it means you have a prescription for waste, fraud, and abuse built into or resulting from the legislative calendar. now, the final area that i think we have a huge problem is what i call the hollow ring out of the senior executives in the government. right now we have 228 and the positions in the federal government for appointments pending before the united states senate and there are a number of ose i think there are 12 of those who have been pending for more than 12 months.

they can't get a vote up or down. i think it would be much better for the administration, the government and the country if the ones deir are serious objections to would be brought up and voted down so another point he could be moved. but we sit in gridlock with very important positions on phill. in recent months or in the last month we've had a number of people that work in front. for instance the under secretary for science and technology at the department homeland security was pending for over six months when her nomination to the floor and passed on a voice vote. we had for ten months a vacancy in the administrator general services administration, which is a key position in terms of moving this administration's agenda on contract reform, which should not be a partisan issue.

nonetheless, she was held up for ten months and then confirmed with 96 positive votes so there is a great deal of this that really does not have to do with a controversy, called personal nature of the appointment. it has to do with individual senators using their ability to put a stick in the spokes in order to get provoke shall positions about things that may be totally unrelated to that nominee. the poster child for this activity has been senator shelby in recent months, who up until about three weeks ago had a hold on every single one of the administration's appointees hoping that he would somehow influence their decision over buying an air force tanker plan that would be made in his district. and i think it's sort of funny, sort of aggravating. but in the end you have

literally of hundreds of important positions that cross the government that are not filled, the cree people working there cannot get the information from the higher ups in the executive branch because you have got a break in filming, of communication with the policy people and the implement terse in the government. and as a result, you've got more waste and fraud and abuse and ineffective government. and that is a cost that we pay for not the big major issues but just a minor day-to-day functioning of the senate in ways that do not make sense that put the rights and prerogatives of individual senators above the functioning of the institution and above the wellbeing of the government. and i think that needs to change. i have to in this whole paper, to suggestions with respect to that that i don't think do any

great damage to the culbert of nature of the senate. one is to simply put a limitation on how long it takes to consider an appropriation bill. i don't really think most of those bills should take more than two days, three days at the outside. i would be willing to associate with that a guarantee that every senator gets to offer one amendment and debate for one hour. you could have as many items in this amendment as he wanted but that would be far more input and protection of minority rights than we have today where we don't even take many of the bills to the senate floor and i think that's a very reasonable compromise. another thing i think absolutely has to be done is somewhere series letitia how long administrative appointees can be held up before a vote is taken on that. there are a lot of different

ways to do it, i'm open to any of them. but i think some action has to be taken. >> thank you very much, scott. tom, i'm getting depressed. i hope that you've got some answers for some of these problems. >> of course. >> we talked about that were authorizations from the regular process for appropriations, holds on confirmations. i list the boutwell problems at the beginning. scott has a couple of recommendations. so when you come up with the problems i like the spirit of coming up with solutions, too. >> got it. hold on. take notes, john. >> i am. >> listen, i'm delighted to be here at the center for american progress and to share this table with senator udall. he gave i thought a really lucid discussion of and case for the fact that the senate is not a

meter waiver and forces, that this force is created sometimes by absolutely inadvertent action likely than the previous question motion in 1806 and that there is a sort of constitutional the crown did case for a new senate, which he would classify as one whose membership has been changed, not completely free e elected to determine its own rules, and i think that really advances the argument very far. and scott lilly has taken our eyes away from the trauma and melodrama away from health reform and these other part is an ideological baubles and appointed to the problem -- problematics and functioning of one of our legislative chambers

that get too little attention but go to the of root of problems today. let me just say i'm delighted with all of the attention being given to this. you know, there is this sense of feeling that all of government is dysfunctional. in fact, once upon vince got a hold of it i knew it had to be wrong. beware of conventional wisdom almost all of this, but the element that's true is that much of the problem of government today is associated with the senate. we have seen over recent decades an extraordinary increase in the percentage of legislation and nominations that had been subject to delay related problems from less than 10% to more than 80%.

that is a change. this isn't just like the old days. it's a profound change. we've seen the organization of the filibuster such that there is a basic acceptance that there is a 60 vote threshold for passing anything or doing anything in the senate. now that's not written into the rules. there is no democratic legislature i'm aware of that has a supermajority requirement for the routine actions of the body. there are exceptions as senator udall pointed out in the constitution but not for the routine -- now obviously that filibuster has roots -- has partisan roots and everything to do with the changing character of the party system and recent decades. but we also have what is become

a promiscuous use of holds. listen, it's been around for a long time and we know all about the need because of increased business and the use of holds for the to track system. but you know, we have had people use holds or objections to unanimous consent agreements. howard metzenbaum, jim allen, who actually parked themselves on the floor of the senate and when they thought something nefarious was going through and no one knew what was in a to demanded some transparency, and that was a very healthy thing. in any case, this has had consequences. as scott said for appropriations bills not getting past, for the demise of authorizations of the

problems with nominations, with hundreds of house passed measures being queued up in the senate. the case for the filibuster is that it turns out it leaves the quote reasonable bipartisan negotiations that produces more moderate board of the british and better legislation. and yet the evidence for that is sorely lacking in contemporary times. okay, jim, shavit begins. what to do. number one, you could abolish the senate. [laughter] you know, how about a nebraska unicameral. it turns out it's hard to abolish the senate to give in its place in the constitution, even to change its representational base. i will strike that one of the list. the second coming you could change the party system. the ideologically polarized parties today make the

filibuster more problematic than it's been in the past and the sort of parliamentary intersecting with the congressional set of rules creates particular problematics. now if i knew how to change the party system, i would do it. it's probably true that more lopsided majorities or one party or the other would probably produce more cross party coalitions. but it's hard to do much about that. it's okay, next possibility. he could try to discredit filibuster's and holds. publicly discredit them. use the power of shame. that's what senator and some of his colleagues were not to -- up to with center bombing and senator shelby. you can imagine president's being engaged in this. the one thing that tom made

perfectly well you can't do is go back to the old filibusters'. if you try to wait them out and force filibuster's the burden is on the majority, not on the minority that's filibustering and it will -- it simply won't work. but shane gets you something and i think a more aggressive use of an effort to discredit the filibuster which is happening now is both useful in its own sense but also as a predicate to moving towards more systematic change. okay. forthcoming use existing alternatives to dilatory tactics. and here, exhibit number one is of course reconciliation. right now in the health care debate republicans are crying

foul, but i think any objective, fair minded assessment of the budget in power much control act of the senate rules, the history of reconciliation demonstrates that this particular use which is a new twist but much more moderate than previous uses is not to enact a whole health reform. versions passed the house in the senate and the latter with of the 60 votes for cloture. but to have the house adopt the senate bill and then approved under the reconciliation process , a set changes, amendments that would be germane under reconciliation rules. sometimes we of special trade authority which creates

fast-track procedures. occasionally it is written into the law that one time or another bills have looked for requiring an up or down vote on recommendations regarding the medicare practices. so it's perfectly legitimate. the senate has looked for these alternatives in the past and they could do so again. the final opportunities to change the rules. there we need to talk about the substance of changes as well as the politics of it. okay. quickly, you could carve out additional exceptions to unlimited debate. scott has already suggested that. extend the reconciliation process to appropriations bills and in fact have time limits on

debate, time for considering these matters. you could set up fast-track procedures for handling nominations and you might do it differently for its tickets nominations and judicial nominations. you might treat district court different from the appellate circuit courts from the supreme court. but there's nothing keeping the senate from setting up such procedures. okay, that's carving out exceptions. the second is to limit time-consuming requirements presently associated with an voting cloture -- invoking cloture. for example you could filibuster at various stages of the process now. even on the motion to proceed, of getting something to the floor on adopting the underlying

measure, on going to conference, on approving a conference report. .. it goes to conference you could get that down in certain ways.

third is to reduce the number of votes needed to invoke closure. you could go from a present 60 of two, ha 3/5 of those, that puts more burden on those who would filibuster because you don't need any of votes against the cloture motion. you just need to get 64. the president voting would be a big change. and you could have as senator udall reported, sliding scale. there are various things to do about that. finally, here is another radical proposal. you could read adopt the previous question motion and included in the rules of the senate and instruct parliamentarian to say which

other items in senate rules and presidents must be struck to be consistent with that. that could potentially turn the senate and house and is too radical a change. final point is procedure in politics of filibuster reform. is it required as someone said, that you have to have two thirds? that is in the rules of the senate. no one disputes that. there is a contrary argument that note new legislative body can be bound by its predecessors and a majority could do it. a majority could pulled off in the beginning of the congress. but is there a majority in favor of doing that? that is the question. is partly partisan.

the current minority will see this as an outrage to weaken their power. but on the other hand they are thinking democrats have many more seats in 2012. we might be back in the majority. that might be appealing and democrats might say we are back in the minority and don't want to do it. i don't think there's a clear partisan case. what will individuals do? as senator udall made clear this is the basis of some individual power within the institution and they are really reluctant to do it. we have a breakdown in the system because when governing the use of this power by individuals give way to its promiscuous use, the body breaks down. the politics are a really tough.

but there are things that could be done and there is a constitutionally defensible route to the senate acting at the beginning of a new session following an election. >> thank you very much. very insightful comments. let me just step back and look at the big picture with all of these suggestions. i would also like to say many of the things we are talking about in terms of the house if you look at the house of representatives, there are things broken over there too. many of the things that have been mentioned here we have the same problem so we have the bigger issue as a country when we look at our legislature or

the congress, are we capable of governing? we have this election. i talked about high expectations, mandate >> reporter: and we have seen it grind to a halt in the conference and the senate playing a significant role in that. all of us as senators need to look as has been suggested here and i have said this before, to be willing to give up a little bit so that we can move along and get things done. one of the areas that troubles me that has been mentioned by tom in his book, this committee structure. it used to be, i will try to follow your suggestion of let's get solutions. here is the solution. it used to be on committee structure that the reason the

committees worked so well, when you have a big body, how do you get that? you go on one committee, your major committee and really learn things. you specialize. your given deference by the other senators and representatives because you spend all of your time in terms of studying the issue. my dad told me how archibald cox came down in the 1950s and topped six or seven members of the labor committee, if you ever find a committee nowadays that they're studying issues like that let me know what it is because when you get six or seven senators spending four hours at a time studying an issue and learning an issue and focusing on the committee, that is when you start producing very good legislation. hi asked several of these scholars when was the first time

we d[dñi committee reform? 1975 and 1976. that was the last time we had filibuster reform also. the institutional has been multiplied to break through. the one final thing i want to say that ties this all together to, i remember getting frustrated with the schedule. the house get the appropriations bill out but it is a brutal process that is very quick. why don't we get more time? was an old-time parliamentarian told me was change the fund rate. what he meant was the numbers of hours highlighted by this congressman where he went on television to talk about it.

five to seven hours a day. it depends on how tough it is but most people think we were sent here to do the job of the american people, spend the time legislating. they knew the numbers of hours we spend on the phone dialing for dollars or in a fund-raising meeting or whatever it is compared to what we are doing on the other side. the balance of this is tipped the wrong way. the solution is campaign finance reform. we need to try to get -- we are in the opposite direction. we are opening the floodgates of the corporations to put in money. we want to take care of that by the end of the year if we don't have a filibuster. this is a huge issue.

i am sure the audience has a couple of comments. >> i've asked aç couple ç questions. the lack of stability is not that way. to the members talk about the anger of the american public? problems in the filibuster? do they worry about that? >> yes. senators talk about it. we talk about it on an informal basis. is a regular part of the discussion. the part that is really broke in washington, i think is if you go back 30 years, the oil that kept

everything going was having time to spend time with each other. scott can tell many stories about the appropriations committee or other committees would spend time with each other. stories about saturday night. congress and the 50s and 60s worked the full week. there would be put lot on saturday night and democrats and republicans would show up with their families and have dinner together. that was the oil that kept things going. you knew each other. you were very reluctant to step onto the floor of the's of representatives and nail somebody personally if you had dinner with them the night before and met the spouse and also knew the children. the frustration is getting to

know individuals in such a way that you get a relationship where you have a bond and you trust each other and you move forward. that is very much missing and we are trying, liang remembers, trying to find ways to get togetherçç and talk with each other in a bipartisan way but it is very difficult. >> let me ask one more question. are the junior members concerned about the committee? stub that -- many committee assignments and too many committees in the senate and an effort working through -- informal in the senate pushing this. last time it was done was 1976.

no one has looked at it seriously. the house has looked at it four times. >> that is right. the real issue is the way committees are treated today is to get on a committee it is a feather in your cap and with the numbers of committees it is hard to get the specialization. there is concern. senator from delaware was appointed after joe biden and senator ted kaufman who was a chief of staff for 30 years. we talk about it. we are trying to talk about building up the fires a little bit to get something going here. if you ask the question, the senators or house members answering truthfully are you

serving on too many committees and have you become in one area really specialized so that you have something to offer or contribute to a better piece of legislation? most of them would truthfully answer -- that is a problem. >> a you willing to give up? >> has scott and some of youç haveñr said, if you look at the structure of appropriations or authorizations for committee structure, if all of us were willing as a group to give up a little bit, we could have a much better working institution and i am willing to do that with all of the others. that is part of the discussion. i came here to talk about the constitutional office. people have questions. why are you trying to do this?

the real core, the reason i chose january of the second year is i thought we would need at least a year to pull everybody together and have the discussion and get working groups going. we are going to hold hearings in the rules committee. chairman schumer will have historical hearings on the filibuster and the state of the filibuster. the freshmen and software classes are working on reform and have small working groups going and trying to get together for lunch on a regular basis. there's a lot happening that i think is going to bear fruit. >> if your constitutional options work, you would see some effort at that point of what the committee system and some of the

other people -- >> my guess in the senate is a lot has to be done in the rules committee. that is the responsibility -- i am on the rules committee. much of the leadership of the senate is on the rules committee. i hope when we do these hearings on the filibuster that we also look a little more broadly at other ideas that have been raised today and other things i talked about to try to see what kind of reform to do. and to the leadership saying we have a working performance. >> final question for the three of view. some people feel the congressional budget process is broken and needs to be changed every year. we now have pay go as part of

the appropriations process. there are other problems with the congressional budget.]iç >> i often use the increase and decrease of public debt as a percentage of gdp which is the correct way to go for it. at an end of world war ii we had public debt at 109% of gdp which was very high and dangerous. over a period of 30 years they were able to bring that down 26%. we were at 50% heading to 65%. the interesting part of that is the lowest point we have been in terms of gdp was in 1974 when we passed the budget. i don't think -- i think there

is some connection. the budget act was clarified and actually made it look like there was a process to deal with issues. you set up a legislative process engaged in planning what the real process would be and it lends itself to members when they favor one route on a budget which in fact is the opposite of the provisions. i think it really does mean serious change. no other change limits the amount of time spent which in the end we only get one number

out of that budget allocation. you could spend $1.3 trillion and that number by the leadership in several weeks of time in both houses. >> you do away with a budget process? >> i don't think you do away with it entirely. >> i heard in 1974 the congressman express a similar view of why we need it. were you working for him? >> right. >> most budget process discussions are ways of avoiding

the real problems that we confront because we have such a difficult time dealing with them. we just get the process right either within congress or go outside congress or to have something beyond the regular order whether it is a bipartisan commission to deal with the problems, i am skeptical that it is worth investing a lot of energy and process changes. what we did and what our leaders ought to be doing is trying to educate the public to confront the nature of the problems we had. we had an immediate short-term need for big deficits. both created by financial stabilization and stimulus programs but also as a

consequence of the worst recession since the 1930s and there is nothing wrong with them existing in the short term. in fact it would be nice if we could get people in congress to speak to that in a clear fashion but that involve the medium and long term, huge imbalances that will require steps to be taken, certainly to slow the rate of health-care cost increases and create additional revenues. instead we patrol the margins having big fights over how much money we are going to save and talked-about what pay go should apply to this and that. the problem now is one of ideology.

a party in ideology, conditional responsibility and straight talk. i put all of my energy into trying to overcome that. >> i think the american public would be shocked to know that most of our executive agencies don't have at the beginning of the year a budget that they know that they can spend. that is the reality of what was described here in scott's proposal which is to say given limited time for appropriations with limited amendments, get it done. what we have right now is a situation where these appropriations bills are rolled into an omnibus that usually takes place from three month to

six months later so you have as has been pointed out here executive agencies who do not have the ability to know what they are going to talk about, doing something about waste, fraud and abuse. you could really do something if in fact you focused on just getting the budget. that is our main responsibility, getting the budget done for the government. >> let's go to the audience. i earlier mentioned a national treasure when it comes to understanding the procedures. that is the best book on the topic. for 27 years he has been associated with the senator.

>> exactly. >> tom is my agent. do any of you have a question? let's do it anyway. >> in any event, a comment, in terms of the constitutional option, just wondering whether or not what senator bird might think. i know that the current situation is sort of an abuse but also on the record many times about how the senate is a super majority institution and the house is a majority institution. so i would assume he would be reluctant to go along with any

fundamental change because really big changes could potentially make the senate more like the house if the principle is established and it is a legitimate one as the senator pointed out. at the start of every new congress you can change the rules of the senate then perhaps over time the senate would become more like the house where every new congress as we all know -- rules are adopted in the house of representatives. how are they adopted? they are adopted by a majority vote of the party in charge. this might lead to a circumstance where you would have constant changes in the rule book in the house triggered by the majority party who is upset by what the minority party is doing and more specifically,

there are many -- everything is filibusterable in the senate. there has been consensus in the past about establishing limiting the amount of time for the motion to proceed. certainly the conference committee is an enormous -- you can't do it because of the threat of the filibuster. you have to have agreement on the three parts. your amendment request and authorize the presiding officer to name conferencees. if you limit those there is an innumerable number of places to filibuster on a motion to instruct. this is a huge issue and i am not saying anything is not to be done. there is lots of room for improvement and even if you curtail the ability of senators to use the filibuster to extend the debate there are lots of other avenues. you can filibuster by offering amendments the size of the manhattan telephone directory.

as we saw when senator mcconnell asked about the majority, that took seven or eight hours. the clerk was urged to reach slowly because every word is important. a few off-the-cuff comments, i don't want to filibuster myself. >> when we talk about the house and say we don't want the senate to become like the house, i think we first of all need to remember that in the constitution, we designed the senate so it would not be like the house in a fundamental way and that will always be there unless we make a constitutional change and that is that two thirds of the senators are always a fairly long way from an

election. at this particular point in time i am five years from an election. two thirds of the senators are in my situation. when we talk about the senate being a cooling force. when we talk about the senate slowing down things and being deliberate but still doing something, it is the structure of a feared elected two years that i think builds in that principle. that is the first thing that i think is important and if you look at the house rules, the house, every time there's a partisan changed dramatically change the rules, there is a reform change. house rules are tweaked a little

bit. but unconstitutional one legislature binding a success, he is quoted as saying we should not be ruled by the dead hand of the past. i think that is a very appropriate, and in light of what we are trying to do. >> a footnote to underscore what senator udall said. one of my favorites when senator bird was majority leader in 1979 trying to push a change in the post cloture filibuster, it is my belief which has been supported by rulings of vice-president of both parties

and the senate, in essence of holding the right and power of a majority of the senate to change the rules of the senate in the beginning of the new congress. that ended up being a production of a change and they removed any hint of precedent but in fact senator bird has stated that. also think it is interesting to note that there haven't been radical changes in house rules with of the change of party control and i have a feeling as long as you don't completely e eliminate the possibility of some extended debate that there are enough structural features and incentives to provide continuity in those in the senate as well. ..

student of the process that he had determined he said let's look, and we have these discussions -- he said let's look at a system where he tried

to maximize the time being spent on legislation and minimize the time and fund-raising. so what you did is take out all of the private money, the corporate money, all of it and benet. that means you are taking head-on buckley versus valeo. buckley versus valeo was wrongly decided so you have to take that head-on. so you pass a piece of legislation -- the one last hope i think is to pass a structure where you take all the money out. you have individuals contribute money to a clean campaign fund. but a few at the beginning of every year for four months allowed the fcc to advertise and say citizens of america you have a chance to get all the special-interest money out, contribute money to a clean

campaign fund and develop that fund and distribute it in general elections based on a formula we would have much more competitive elections and returned to elections beyond the marketplace of ideas with citizens speaking with the fall were the best ideas rather than whoever has the biggest check book, whoever has the biggest check book. so you all need to push for it. the american people need to push for this. it is a way of right now provide believe that helps everything we are talking about up here. i want to underscore you want your legislators doing less fund-raising, more time on legislation and they are going to fulfill the wishes of the american people if you do that. >> did you think the citizens united decision as helping that movement to more reform? >> yes i do, jim, i do. i think citizens united has

crystallized the argument for everyone because for 100 years we basically have no corporate money in the process. you allow voluntary tax which corporation -- which grew since the big reforms in the 1970's. but we were limiting. now the floodgates are open and the expectation -- the other day i was astounded at our state level, our state races. when people run in a small state like mexico for a statewide office you're spending a couple hundred thousand dollars. people are now expecting the flood gates of corporate money to come in and millions of dollars be spent in those races by a variety of organizations. so as people learn and know about that i think it will give an impetus to try to tackle campaign finance reform regarding the decision. we are on the strongest footing

constitutionally the way that the cases are now for disclosure and transparency. that's -- we can do that now. so you can say the ceo has to be on television a to can disclose all of the donors, but otherwise a few of the big reform the gentleman asked about, you were going to have to take on buckley versus valeo, send them up a system and if they declare it unconstitutional you have to amend its constitution to allow the kind of regulation and legislating that the congress needs to do in this area and senator dodd and i are on a constitutional amendment right now that i think forces that issue. >> tom has written several books and study campaign finance for years. he's been called in the reform. that's why it's working so well right now, tom. >> haven't we done a brilliant job? listen, this panel has been so agreeable. it's time we had a little disagreement. and i'm going to disagree with the senator on this. i don't think banning all

private money in elections and campaigns would be a good thing. i also don't think it is constitutionally possible. it would take a constitutional amendment and what in my view -- eight would seem very much to go against the free-speech guarantee of the first amendment. i also just think having citizens but a little skin in the game as something useful. some market tasks for candidates to raise money is a good thing. getting individual -- my son got excited this last time and he makes very little money but he made contributions on the internet and on the new named president candidate several times and had a sense of

engagement and participation. also i think there is nothing attractive for most citizens to give to a fund that could go to what the politicians the most despised whose ideological views they detest the one to get to people that they admire as individuals, as members of parties, as espousing a public philosophy. but i am for public funding but i think we ought to be thinking of multiple public messages for small donations that increased the incentives of members of congress who now get a very small percentage of their funding from small donations directly cultivate and go after small donors. give them four or five to one matches up to a limit not handing them a grant after the

qualified by getting a few names of petitions. that is too vulnerable to the charges of welfare for politicians. but might the individual citizen and the donner be in power. what the constitution be magnified. change the incentives of politicians. you're never going to eliminate the role of wealthy people in politics. they are -- if they are prepared to act independently they can do a lot. yes, i am all for the transparency disclosure response of citizens united and i thought it was a lousy, all of decision. but in general, i think for public financing as an idea has come and gone just in terms of pure constitutional political feasibility and that we ought to get behind a plan to and how were the small donors through matching public funds.

>> that's good and another question. let's go to sarah, the head advocate lobbyist for common cause. she doesn't culberson for lovkvist. but to have a question, sir. >> i'm delighted at this panel. congratulations to all of you. common cause is working on these issues and public financing is like the system you're talking about, mr. mann, is one of our big issues. but back to the filibuster. i agree there is much to be said that rules in the senate can be changed by majority vote. just like it takes a majority vote on final passage of bills to pass them. the problem is getting to the final passage. and my fear is that in the beginning of next year when you moved to change the rules of the senate that that can be filibustered. that is what life. and maybe you can comment on that. >> fun -- this is a i think i am

back to the normal ornstein box again, but if i understand your question, which is true in the filibuster rule that is specifically says 67 votes or required to change the rule and if you just go by the confines of the rule, you basically are stock. but as has been pointed out, and more has been pointed out and just in my opening comments, the senate began -- if you go all the way back to the history of the early senate from the beginning to 1806 there was a motion to order the previous question. for those of your better students of the house today he see that. every time you move to a vote on the final bill there is a vote before that on the motion to order the previous question.

it is normally a party-line vote. it's considered a procedural vote but it cuts off the debate and then you move. the senate had that in place until 1806 and then it apparently was dropped aside because it wasn't used. there was so much respect that if he were a senator you were allowed to stand and talk for how long you wanted to talk and then the rest of the body went and legislated. now we've got ourselves into the situation where a minority can determine what the majority will do. we've given them the power to gunster to prevent from doing anything to read what the constitutional option is let's look over the next ten months at how we can change the rules to allow the majority will go forward but also protect minority rights. and it's grounded in the

constitution, not in the senate rules. you are jumping outside of the filibuster rules saying 67 votes to change the rules. you go to the constitution. no place in the constitution is it mentioned that a super majority is needed to change the rules in fact it just says adopt the rules of its proceeding and only seven places in the constitution doesn't specifically mention supermajorities for things like overriding a veto or a treaty or things of that line. so i think this gives every senate and the ability of the beginning of the congress to look at what happened in the previous congress and be able to tweak the rules. my hope is as you move down the road to doing this it brings everybody closer together. democrats and republicans to try

to say let's be fair to the other side when we have got a majority let the majority act. it was elected with a mandate to do something. and then they are accountable at the next election for how they acted. and if the overreact, then the citizens can take that out at the ballot box. >> to procedural footnote to what the senator said. the way that it would work is that the chair, the presiding officer would rule favorably on a motion by the majority leader to adopt a new set of rules presumably some would challenge that on the ground that it's in violation of the chair would

deny, the chair already made a statement. it is a motion to overrule the chair, the majority would then move to table come a tabling motion is not debatable and therefore can pass by simple majority. so you could in effect of told the ruling of the presiding officer creating the basis for changing the senate rules by majority. over here to the left, the gentleman in this letter, please. >> my name is charlie. i just had my 75th birthday so i've been around awhile and worked a lot of campaigns. and a lot of intelligence up there and your work -- also run a lot of companies and let me try a different stroke. we are engaged in two wars over

coming disguising as a deep recession, deep depression. we have a broken health care plan and the people who are in charge are acting like a french court. worried about the rules, worried about not hurting each other's feelings, how about some of the melody, how about some patriotism? how about some understanding that we, the citizens are getting angry. it scares the hell out of the we are the most armed country in the world. we've got idiots running around with teabags on their head and guns behind them and we are sitting around saying let's change this rule, let's change that rule. let's start moving with a sense of urgency and senator i wish you the best and i will pray for you and work for you whatever you need but let's get moving, enough. i'm done. >> just a brief comment, and i understand the passion and i think what you're going to see -- this is a debate by a very

skilled and talented panel to try to educate on an issue. you were going to see from the congress and the senate the next couple of months major pieces of legislation focusing on jobs and economic development and pulling us out of a recession. on financial reform to fix so that it never happens again. health care reform -- and the president put out there his proposal, and i think we are going to get that done. and my guess, by the summer, we are going to have major things in place. it's going to be big fights. some of it will be done under reconciliation. but it has to get done and it has to get done for the american people. >> with that we are going to close. i want to thank the center for american progress and the staff. the staff of center for congressional presidential studies at american university

for their work. gentlemen, thank you very much for your remks. [applause] and i think several people will be here if you want to come up and ask specific questions afterwards. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

european commission president jose barroso took questions during a plenary meeting in strasbourg flans on tuesday. members dustin of the economic crisis in greece, food security in europe and creating a european monetary fund. during the second half of question hour, members' questions focused on a humanitarian rights. this is about one hour and ten minutes.

[inaudible] mr. joseph from epp, the floor is yours. >> translator: president barroso, if my group and others here have worked here in order to get to the lisbon treaty through and see it come into effect that something that we can experience now the past three months. we need to have a policy that is worth its name in the international arena and i think we should be on the right track but i would ask you come president, how can we say that 500 million europeans can have their lights defended? it's up to the european union to live up to its ideals and values. the action service provided the lisbon treaty should be coming into the light of day soon, and we will be involved in its

inception. now, the european parliament with council and commission will act as a decider on the financial regulation and other issues. my group is very keen on the fact the european service for external action takes full responsibility in terms of budget and policy. i look forward to your comments. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you. you know the common external service is one of the most important innovations of the lisbon treaty. this service will assure the coherence of our foreign policy through the high representative. it will allow member states to participate more and to be more and more involved in the area of common, foreign and security policy so it's not putting this in the intergovernmental arena

quite the contrary. an agreement was given to the service by the parliament. we had a -- we will have a meeting at the college next thursday. we would like to have a strong european service that will be a strategic coordinating instrument that will allow for expeditious exchange between member states and the other institutions in this area. this will be under the responsibility under the hi representative and we of course must answer to the european parliament. and we have to look at all of the aspects of this service. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. the growth of the progress of [inaudible] mr. schwartz. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you. mr. barroso, fun -- the euro

crisis was unleashed by incorrect figures provided by greece. i would like to know from you whether you can confirm that at no point in time before the latest budget figures were supplied by the greek government, you or any office is in your commission had already been informed about the correct figures. and second, can you confirm that the euro that dr. general had considerable doubts as early as 2004 and in 2005, which he reported in relation to the data from athens. what did you do to support the

acquisition of data? and third, is it correct inspectors in euro that inform you that they had considerable doubt about athens data. >> thank you very much. >> it is precisely because we had doubts against -- regarding the greek figures was leading this file the last five years with great competence and great impartiality and greater objectivity that we made the point several times with the greek authorities but put forth a regulation in the council to propose to give the powers and fortunately this was rejected by the member states. they did not want to give the european commission more powers to go in depth in the national

accounts of greece. i'm very pleased to tell you the first decision was to put forth gain of regulation and my information is that this time at least some of those countries that voted against the regulation, this time they told me already that this time they will vote for more transparency. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much mr. president. on behalf of the group -- >> yes, please >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you. i understood that mr. armenia was responsible but i was asking about your intervention. perhaps you could tell me what you, yourself did you need to buy a dress and properly, mr. barroso, that the blame lies with the member states for the greek crisis because they refused to follow your proposals and would you tell us please which heads of state and government were involved?

>> first of all, if you ask me about the lamb to the couple and i don't use that name but with the greek authorities that did not respect the stability at gross impact. it is because of this we have a huge problem. regarding the commission -- commissioner armenia with my full support and the support of the college performed its job in an exceptionally competent way and this issue of the council of greece was several times addressed in the meetings regarding the least of the member states that voted against this matter i cannot buy my heart told you exactly but i know germany voted against and it was germany that told me at this time they are going to vote for it. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. >> mr. president [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: there is a consensus tuesday that we need

strong economic governance and the e.u. and that is a huge change, visa fi the last few years. last sunday he stated that he was favorable to a european monetary fund. there are other proposals, other options for example the creation of a european debt agency euro bond or perhaps a european credit team agency. so mr. barroso, we see that things are moving quickly at least for the time being so i have three very specific questions. is it true the commission is currently working on a proposal to create this european monetary fund? secondly, is it true as mrs. merkel states i have my doubts but it's necessary to change the treaty in order to do so. a third it could labiate first

step a true european treasury that we will need in order to sustain this monitoring union. >> first of all, regarding the proposal it was made that idea put forth by the minister of finance of germany without giving any such institution. it seems however an instinct contributing to the debate about the area that the ems is a longer-term proposal which might require the change in the treaty. what we are working in as we are preparing some initiatives on the economic policy coordination and counter surveillance. we cannot at this stage tell what will be the format of this. of course generally speaking as you said we support everything that goes in favor of increased

economic governance but we have to see the details and to make the proposal at the right time. having said this, the issue of the emf could not solve the urgent issue of greece. it's a separate issue that requires more analysis and is for longer term. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. >> first i would like to thank the president of the commission for the reply and i would agree with him the fund as such cannot solve the problems right away and that's why i asked in the commission's reflection there should be various options but on the table. you have got the ems that is a long-term project. you've got to bonds and other ideas that can naturally help in the increase case did you have

the credit rating agencies. of course we've been working with foreign agencies but we could have our own and we could have a european debt agency. we could put all these ideas together to come up with a coherent idea with the commission rather than member states. yes, it specifically to avoid what is happening now. everybody is proposing different ideas. sometimes within the same government and is for this reason we don't want to be hasty. we want to prepare this and the commissioner stated this already we will be working on the basis of the communication on coordination on economic strength and economic policy and surveillance country by country within the context of the euro and perhaps also with the general context of the european union. that's what we are preparing

right now three and we don't want to work with the new proposals every day. we want to work in an object of and responsible way and i think it is in this manner that we will be able to get the best results. >> thank you. >> translator: president, in view of the situation in the european union there is no market or demand for the cultivation of the potatoes for which there are alternatives. i would like to ask you what you lobbied so hard to insure that the potatoes were fast attracted the authorization procedure. i would like to have an explanation when there was no need what encouraged the new health commission simply to

ignore the tests, why didn't you wait until they had presented its new directive which is just being written on risk appraisal in terms of risks by diversity and in general rising from the gm of why the contamination level for food potatoes were raised to support of 9%? this is a risky strategy which will will find acceptance among our citizens. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i would like to thank you. we have seen your protest. thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. president. the commission decided unanimously to move ahead with authorization of these in accordance with the provision of

the european law. we have an institutional setting that we have to respect and we have to take a position yes or no. the time has elapsed since it was launched and that is because the authorization are subject to scrutiny of our independent agency in terms of security. he wanted all concerns regarding the presence of resistance marked to be assessed. after an extensive and complete review of the spinning funds it was clear there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessments based on the opinion of our competent agency that is independent from the commission. so we believe that all scientific issues have been fully addressed and i was expecting from you a word of congratulations. [laughter] because i have announced we of

intention to propose to give the member states the possibility if you want or not to cultivate the gm of. this is i think a reasonable position when we know that there are a few differences among the member states some very much in favor and some very much against >> i got no answer to the question about the need for this genetic potato which is supposed to be supplied in industry. there are alternatives why take the risk and what about the contamination level? wind .9%? previously we discussed the evidence threshold i think for food and feed stuff when it comes to man resistant potato this is a significant rescue

didn't address this and i would like to know whether additional authorizations before the directive is in place for example imported royce what is the time? >> thank you. [applause] the enthusiasm of your grew by one to congratulate you for the manifestation. you have a strong position against any gmo. i don't have any position in favor or against. it depends on the opinion given to me by experts. i don't have any presence in favor or against the gmo and the commission as a position that is to follow in those matters.

i don't see the commissioner not discussing ideological about its gmo what they should do regarding each one. the commission takes the position based on the independent assessment making to us not because the gmo is necessary but if there is not evidence that it is risky for public health for the environment in that case we feel obliged according also to the obligations which ended up with ngo if there is nothing that prevents us scientifically from doing so. we respect very much -- >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: european conservatism's reform, please.

>> i promise you that following the gmo my question is going to be more simple. i believe one of the things that we should talk about is the economics, that is right, and i'm sure that the european union citizens are far more interested in employment and jobs the and in a gmo potatoes. some people in this cycle r for strong government. on the other hand, i represent the ecr curve and i don't think strong governments create jobs or in plymouth, i think businesses are responsible for the creation of new jobs. three questions, for the independence rate or you going for the economic problems?

are you going to leave some leverage to the states to deal with these issues? second thing, can you promise us and cut in the european legislation that is slowing down and do you agree we should have less regulation and less harmonize regulation that that should help the that is the best solution for the economic cabinet? thank you. >> first of all we fully respect diversity of the states. that's why the european 2020 strategy we are making that point very clear. we address the issue precisely what instruments like the social and economic commission policies so the situation as not the same. at the same time, we need as said earlier, a stronger economic governance because it makes no sense in the european union and the cause of the

member states alone do the policies certainly they will not have the leverage to discuss for instance the great challenges. the united states or china are an equal footing so we needed the same time to have a common approach but then to design specific measures for different member states. regarding the issue with ethnicity of burden that has been a very important point in my action made we believe we should pursue seeing pragmatically where the legislation is needed and avoid the regulation when simply is not needed. >> [speaking in native tongue] transnet thank you very much. united left. >> translator: mr. barroso, last week he made a proposal for an economic strategy it there are a number of very important objectives of the overall framework. greece has had a savings program

imposed which i think really is asking the impossible because here we are talking about a level of gdp 3% and so on. but in fact you're looking against this as a backdrop of the field stability growth impact. the same time several of the states are turning to the imf. now or you in your 2020 proposal going to rework the 2020 proposal to somehow integrate the monetary fund? what about tax dumping and so on? how is that going to be tackled? are you going to adopt measures with member states to put a stop to this speculation against the banks that have been just been bailed out with taxpayers' money? >> thank you very much.

we believe greece has taken the necessary measures to reduce the debt this year and these measures show the good government to tackle the problems. at the same time, we are doing what is necessary to secure the financial stability of the areas. the commissioner has been working with the states to design a mechanism which greece could use in case of need. such a mechanism would be with the current treaty but not by a loud applause. it would include stringent conditionality. the condition is ready to propose european framework for the coordinated assistance which would require the support of the area member states. this is what i can tell you about greece it about the response for the area's stability. regarding the proposals of 2020 you don't see any need to change. we've put them forward, those proposals. they are going to be discussed by the european council also by the european parliament and we hope it will be a very fruitful

discussion. >> thank you. >> i'm not entirely satisfied the question is taxpayers' money is being used to engage in speculation against greek states. this money comes in part from german banks and nothing is happening. we're just hearing talk about other measures are going to be adopted. i'm disappointed by the fact so little is being done. to prevent, to ban things from happening in the e.u. to put a stop to the speculation so that we can concentrate on growth. >> regarding speculation let's be clear they were not caused by speculation. it is mainly caused by

overspending and not respecting the european framework in terms of stimulating the impact. manly the access of the debt but of course afterwards it may happen that speculator stacked against the sovereign debt of the country. this show is also the importance of fundamental reform derivatives market and the relevance of the action already taken by the commission. of the 20th of october, 2005 the commission began a program of action in favor of efficient solid derivative markets. the legislative proposals that the commissioner presented before the summer and also those concerning the the market abuse directive that the commissioner presented before the end of the year will increase market transparency limit risks. the of the systemic response the new reflection is needed on credit to default swaps regarding sovereign debt. the problem of the naked practices needs political attention in this context. it is not justified by insurance

and on seen interventions on the risks, on the purely speak to this basis. on the short term we must achieve this record mission to make sure states act in coordinated but for next practices in this context the commission will examine the relevance of banning purely spec collective credit to default swaths of sovereign debt. at the same time we will push for international coordination because these markets are very opaque. we will be in the position to the g20 and we also have to raise some of these issues by actual context particularly with the united states. 64. did it disturb you because it was important elsewhere of course. while the specific questions this time there was slightly longer.

>> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. the question i wanted to ask has already been opposed as a greek member i wanted to make the point to you that greece will get through this stuff period of testing and we are responsible for this. it is a test of endurance and disciplined for greece. i'm very happy to hear you speak of the g20 as a group in which the question of swaps will be debated. on top of the grease we have been hard hit by market speculation increase and i would like to hear you say a little more about that in fudgy 20 context. are you going to put forward any

initiatives to establish clear rules with respect to uncovered purchasing, naked purchasing of credit-default swaps. >> it's important to say it comes from excessive debt. there will probably speak to that attacks but because they saw an opportunity. now, we have to support the increase. greece has announced very important measures and we fully support those measures. at the same time we have to look to the broader issue. we will examine closely the relevance of banning purely speculative credits redefault swaps of sovereign debt. the question of transparency between regulators particularly on access to information on these practices also deserves to be raised. also in the g20 and another bilaterally. last friday the commission organized in brussels a meeting

with national regulators to see what we can know about the action of some of these speculators against sovereign debt and we need to proceed on the in-depth analysis on the credit swaps market so as to better determine how these markets function and if they are the subject of questionable practices. if needed the commission will use the powers it has also in that matter. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president, is there any kind of timetable with respect to this mechanism providing speculation? i would like to hear if so that way we will have some idea about borrowing capital on the international markets. >> the commissioner will present

before the summer some legislative proposals regarding the directive on part of the bids and concerning the market abuse directed. the commissioner will present before the end of the year also a proposal. we believe this proposal will increase market transparency handling its risks. handling of the credit-default swaps we put in the june 20. it is in june. >> mr. daniel please. >> mr. barroso, openness and transparency our fundamental values of every self respecting democracy. if people in administration can have their expenditure not uttered by citizens, then a senior of self and richmond can occur. we seen the last few years in the u.k.. in the dutch press it has been mentioned that mr. barroso in

2009 and declared 30,000 churros. that isn't just ludicrous large amount but quite a feat. imagine declaring 2000 year rose per day hat's off to you mr. barroso. but on a more serious note, space scrutiny of these declarations is something that really has to be dealt with because of internal audit is occurring and then people are getting their seal of approval. so i would ask mr. barroso and the commission as a whole to move away from this culture of secrecy and publish their declarations often transparently on the internet so that all we european citizens can see what it says in them. i would appreciate a response. >> i am somewhat surprised by this kind of comment in fact the so called representational expenses we make the service of the european union namely truffle of the members of the commission, myself and the other members of the commission, and

in fact if you compare these amounts with what is spent by government you will find that these are very small compared to those expenditures. the budget for the colleges fixed by the budget authority and you are part of debt and the budget has remained the same for five years. regarding the expenditures they are reasonable for the public goods detroit to serve and we are scores using full transparency. we are presenting to the budget authority to the court of auditors all elements that have been requested from us. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, mr. president. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: apparently the parliament does give access but that's nonsense. everything happens behind closed

doors. everything in secrecy. if he doesn't show responsibility then he should make all of this public and if he doesn't want to then he should at least at the opening honestly but if you are following all the rules, then why can't these declarations be put on the internet and need your afraid of the reaction of the citizens. just make them public. >> thank you. in a system of law we respect the rules. [inaudible] >> mr. president barroso will give an answer. mr. president, please start. >> in the system of law we respect the rules of law and to make analysis of the intention of people is at least on a fair. we cannot attribute to me or the commission any intention behind

what is the respect of the rule of law. once again, i think we have to make a distinction between what are the obligations of the european commission or any public body regarding will fall or what is to give up some demagogic attacks to the european institutions. in fact in the commission, the institutions in general have the highest standard in terms of transparency and so i do not accept this kind of easy criticism populist demagogic will. [applause] >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you mr. president for your answers. we've completed the first round of questions to the president of the commission of a general nature. now we should focus on one topic that is the implementation of the new treaty and the basic rights.

the first speaker will be for one minute, please. >> thank you mr. president. i hope i'm not going to be part from the question that's going to be asked. i'm convinced mr. barroso and i agree that respect for fundamental freedoms is the most important element within the e.u. and between the e.u. and other countries the e.u. [inaudible] for the period between 2009 to 2013 billions of years for helping. now don't mr. beatty to whether mr. speed is familiar how the money will be spent but i would appreciate if mr. speed could talk about his attitude towards the state because very often when you talk about countries

with the government you don't mention so i would like to hear what mr. barroso thinks of the state of eritrea. thank you. >> thank you for the fundamental rights. of course we defend and we defend not only in the european union but also in our relations. it does not mean we can only have relations with countries that respect fundamental rights. unfortunately there are many countries in the world that do not respect fundamental rights and we have to keep relations with those countries. it is in fact a case that raises concerns in terms of respect for fundamental rights also because of the situation in which the state exists it to be considered according to some commentators as a field state. a state where there is not rule of order because of civilian conflict because of widespread violence because of back many

areas of the country the authorities cannot exercise a space power so we are in fact following the situation in all countries that can pose a problem to the fundamental rights. >> jean? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, within the context of the date i would like to draw your attention to the body scanners in the european airports. one of the principles of the european policy is the protection of health and safety and fundamental freedoms of the citizens of europe so we must not agree to a situation in which the feeling of three of the security and safety. we are so easily waiving the right to the protection of privacy. i have a feeling that the situation with the scanners is

similar to the one which we lived through during the five new flu pandemic. we have invested a lot of money into the vaccines which were not needed and we know that today. we believe we are also trying to force the situation in order to use body scanners here. mr. president i would like to hear on this issue. are you for or against the body scanners? thank you. >> if the member states agree because i think it should be and normalization of the rules of security and safety in our airports. what happens now is some of the member states are introducing body scanners in the report's authors are not. so as you know the commission has presented some time ago a proposal for body scanners that was refused. we believe of course this raises

some concerns but we should try to find if possible a position regarding any security and the european airports. if not we can have a kind of discrimination of the evaluation of the security and our airports >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the treaty respects the rights of local authorities and regions across europe and this will be an important factor for example when you start discussions on the future of the policy. i wonder if you could tell us why you start those discussions on the upper region report that he would assure us that you will have those discussions with local authorities regions on the policy and of course with this

parliament. >> yes, this is not for the fundamental rights but of course we will discuss these issues with local and regional authorities. it is for us a social and economic and territorial commission. this is now recognized by the lisbon treaty as one of the goals of the european union. in the new 2020 strategy that i presented some time ago we make it clear that the collision will remain a central feature of our proposals and we want to have all the time and consideration of the policies. and this is part of the dialogue with the regional and policy authorities. i also mentioned in the document i just referred to i also mentioned the need to consult for instance the region's. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: -- before,

mr. president. i would like to raise a piece of the metal will expedite recently visited scotland and perched a boy who wants to raise [inaudible] this relates to the first speaker was saying about eritrea. the family martyred eritrea for being christian, the persecution of christians is a subject of a lawyer familiar with. he managed to escape to italy and in scotland where allison and robert took her and cared for her and looked after her as their own daughter. she is now 17. she is facing deportation back to italy where she first sought asylum and we are doing all that we can to raise her case to appeal to all those that can help her if she requires to remain in the loving care of allison and robert. her case is raised by civil society human rights organizations and churches across scotland. it was even mentioned on the fall for