to the i don't want to see more about cape cod because i'm probably speaking out of ignorance, but the picture is broader than that. there might be some places they have to put in sewers or some other places where opportunities exist, but it does give me a chance to give a shout out to the green infrastructure on the waterside because we at the epa are looking at is one of the places we think the epa in ten years that might be on our list, this idea that -- mary landrieu is a lot of this, too, thinking about water and how to manage water in a way that's actually beneficial, rather than sort of something to be treated and gotten rid of. it's a cycle. the same waters on the earth that was on the earth when it was formed pretty much, as we have to think about water that may ..

i could not make it without him. who else is here? larry ellsworth, cynthia. there is a bunch. [laughter] so that is why they are all looking very happily. >> yes, back there. >> you evan very eloquent in your conversations. [inaudible]

the balance between public housing and all of the political decisions that have to be made and then the challenge, the balance between policy and political decision-making, because of the basics of the clean air act being protecting public health at the core value. it is and always shared in the same or seen the same way that i think we see it and that i think you have described that you see it. i would like you to talk a little bit how that ellen says, maybe you see more differences or understand the complexity of that letter and i also want to make sure that i ask about if -- will be out by december 31? >> well you know, thank you janice. good to see you and thank you for your hard work of the american lung is facing -- lung association and the benefits of

good air quality. every year the white house does a study of all the rules of the federal government has put out that year and they do it on the cross benefit basis. what most people don't know and you certainly wouldn't know if you read some of the rhetoric that is coming out in this town is that every year the benefits of rules greatly exceed the cost of rules and the agency that usually is the turning point in that analysis is epa. and a law that is usually the reason for that is the clean air act. the clean air act historically has the rules under the clean air act benefits the cost. that helps benefits so yes the private sector generally. there is another study coming out that shows it closer to 321 recently, so 30 to one. everybody almost always hands down in terms of cost and benefits and the clean air act is absolutely bar none the

strongest of the laws in terms of costs and benefits because it is so easy to look at something like articulate and so didn't realize those are -- doubts. not sicknesses, does. people die. a look at mercury and realize that is a neurotoxin and it is persistent and once emitted is there forever. or relook at smog and ozone and realize the impact on asthma, sick days on hospitalization all those costs avoided and there is a great body of literature out there about those. you now i remain committed to making very clear again back to jason's point is well that those public health benefits are for all americans regardless of where you live. we are seeing areas of our country now but have levels of those on that are unhealthy even by the outdated standards that we are looking to mend and they are very -- because air doesn't respect boundaries and air

disrespect geographic issues like mountains that pull air in, so we need to be honest and sort of have a square shoulder conversation with the american people about where we still have challenges under the clean air act but i don't think you can do that without acknowledging how far we have, and the cost benefits associated with that and yes we are still working hard on the ozone standard for the industry. >> right behind you. >> good morning. jen peterson environmental integrity project. administrator jackson you have made environmental quality one of your top issues, and i know that epa has issued recent guidance or preliminary guidance about consideration of social justice and environmental justice issues in major rulemaking, but we can have the most beautiful environmental laws and if you don't have strong permits -- permits and enforcement we really aren't addressing the heart of the

inequality and pollution issues in certain communities and i'm wondering what the epa plans or if epa has plans to address social justice and environmental justice issues, cumulative effects in the permitting context? >> thanks. the answer is yes but there are a couple of things to remember. 90% or so of permits are issued by states, not epa and they are issued by state to operate programs under the same laws that i was talking about before so a state might have its own clean air act but it is basically in place to help implement the federal clean air act or the federal clean water act in the case of water. so i think it is the challenge of environmental justice, i prefer environmental justice as a way to talk about it because the challenge of that movement is to find a way within first the regulatory process which i

think epa worked really hard on in the last two years to think about and frame those issues so that they are considered when you are putting a rule together. too often our rules in the past, you know what? it will make the air cleaner so everybody benefits but doesn't consider a community that might already be overburdened. very tough analyses to do but very important to at least consider and i think we are in good shape there for putting the agency on a path to systematically do that. in the permitting process, that will be harder but not unheard of and actually some states have been leaders in thinking about it and what we need to do is show people that when an environmental justice issue comes up in the permitting context, doesn't mean there will be no permits. it doesn't mean this cannot happen because oftentimes the community of course once the economic development but all it is asking is that economic development not come at the expense of public health. we have seen some lovely examples of places where

mitigation or additional consideration of that community, everybody wins and i think we need to try to change the environmental justice framework with absolute respect for a lot of the attorneys who got us to the point where environmental justice did mean i've got to stop this project at all costs. it is that bad. now i think we need to build with industry who understand and want to be good corporate neighborhoods and examples of how environmental justice can bring good things into community and that is going to be harder but i think we can do it. so yes we can do that work and should do it. we will have to do in conjunction with the states and i think that is where you want to find leaders and lead them where they are. >> yes, this row here starting with you. that way we can get the microphone to move move back and forth. >> good morning administrator jackson, nice to see you here. i am richard ayers and although i've never been at epa, as a staff member i have been at epa for a very long time.

i wanted to pick up on something that you commented on earlier because i brought it up to your predecessor who needed to hear it much more. the cost-benefit ratio of the clean air act is often cited and rightfully so as justifying the program, but there is an implication in the 321 or 15 to one that rarely seems to be picked up, which is that we are not doing enough. we are under investing in clean air. we would get to the economist perfect equilibrium if we invested 1 dollar for every dollar we got back, not one for every 15, so as issues come up, for example the likely campaign that you are probably already feeling of all the old power plants coming in to tell you once again we need another 10 years.

i would think this would be an argument that you might want to make within the white house and other executive branch agencies and i just wanted to kind of point that out to you. >> thanks. well, you know, think that is a great point. i would also say that you heard i am an engineer by training. the reason it is one to 15 are one to 30 is because of technological innovation that happens in this country because of an entire industry whether it is dealt around scrubbers or particular to elders or cleaner cars, anybody seen the new gm commercials? they are very cool. all of these industries whose based on innovations that came to be only because it was the epa setting regulations that said we want to be here. here is our vision for air quality. here is our vision for what cars should and me may he met and then as an issue that, quickly and oftentimes much more quickly

than the doomsday folks would have you believe, innovation exit much much cheaper to get there than anyone ever thought. that is absolutely the history of not only the clean air act that the clean water act as well and that is what people need to understand, that these aren't high in the sky numbers that are thrown out there willy-nilly. they are numbers that are developing in conjunction with a pollution control industry, the sector because we can get there. one of the beauties of the clean air act is you now under the emissions, the carcinogen standards, and is based on what industry demonstrates he can do itself so it rewards the folks who rushed to the tap and say everybody else you need to get there too because we wanted to be fair for this industry that stepped up and control their mercury. you need to control your stem that her go so i will do that but i will say i don't think that number will change because

i think no matter what we set out to do from the standpoint of the regulatory standard, the engineers and a technologist and the scientist always beat our expectations and then they sell those projects, not just here but around the world. >> david farmer report. two years ago, the administration was talking about passing on climate change bill with a cap-and-trade program and now it seems like perhaps the most likely measure to move forward is something to suspend your authority over greenhouse gases for two years. so my question is, what is the way forward for you and for epa and for the administration on greenhouse gas emissions? >> well, they way forward is that we are going to continue to do what i started to say two years ago, which is that we are going to use the clean air act

as we were ordered to do by the u.s. supreme court, to make determinations first on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. we believe they do and that is the determination we made and then to implement sensible, common sense, stepwise, many cases moderate rules that together add up to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. they also added to measurable reductions in other pollutants as well so we are going to continue that work. obviously if the law changes the first thing we do is to follow the law. so if we are not able to do that under law, then we are not going to try to not do that. we are going to do with what the law says, but i think you know the president has called for moving the pieces of the agenda that makes sense. and i think one of the things that is missing is overwhelmingly americans believe that clean energy is a factor we should be investing in.

they do look at the world at large and see tremendous opportunity. in general, businesses know that if you can get your energy sector right, keep bringing the cost of energy down, not have it skyrocket that is a huge competitive advantage for us here in this country. so all those opportunities are still right where they were. they are not being discussed in the legislative context. my hope is that over time the country will turn back and say legislation again but in the meantime we will continue to do what we have been doing, whether it is the clean cars program which was widely embraced, so much so that we are going to do another clean cars program. the clean trucks program which was as poor by the trucking industry so they could have a set of rules so they could make their next generations of trucks and not have to worry that at some point in the future the rules would change on them. regulatory certainty is what i hear over and over again that businesses need, and right now legislative certainty would have been great. we will try to keep moving forward with regulation, and

business rightfully points out that oftentimes those regulations are subject to litigation but that has been part of epa's 40 year history as well. yes, sir. >> bill blake markham abc news. could you expand on that a little bit further? there is a certain amount of confusion apparently still the public's mind about emissions that are clean as opposed to those that are invisible because greenhouse gas is by definition invisible. could you talk in a slightly larger sense about the degree to which you feel that epa and our governmental system really is the place for global warming to be confronted, or maybe above what you hope might happen in a years time. >> goodness. well, first let me say i don't want to leave the impression that epa is the only place where greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed. i think investment from the department of energy have been

very important. i think a unified government approach, for example the department of transportation as they look at the next generation of the transportation investments in infrastructure and the transportation bill will be very important along with congress in addition to the work and investments they have already made under the stimulus act. what i'm saying is that the clean air act has a wonderful history of being able to address pollutants in a cost effective way, right? in a way that is positive from a cost-benefit if you look at it through that lens, either right or wrong. it also is extremely popular because of its ability to deal with pollution. that worries americans greatly. and so all i am saying and i don't have the answer here, is that it is a law that has a proven history of being able to work in a way that doesn't upset the entire economic applecart, that doesn't cause armageddon,

that doesn't have the ability to cause, to wreak havoc on our economic system. but it has to be done carefully, and that is what we will continue to do. now, i think that the other piece of that equation is that oftentimes the same steps that are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas are huge emitters of pollution still, to this day. many of those stacks don't have mercury controls. many of the stacks don't have controls for acid gases or particulate matter. don't have controls for the precursors to smog and so i think there are still huge opportunities to clean up our ngugi. you asked what clean means. i always say epa's the cleaning clean energy many times. is the emissions that people worry about them whether they have public health implications so i don't think it is an accident that is people look at the landscape they say, well, if you are still going to regulate

mercury isn't that going to affect our energy sector? yes, it is but we have always regulated mercury and we should continue to regulate mercury. mercury is almost ubiquitous in our fish now. we tell pregnant women they can eat fish even though it is a healthy meal because mercury. we have to continue on with our public health and their opportunities to combine it with benefits from the greenhouse gas sector. >> is that what you wanted or do you want to follow up? >> i think it is huge in the public's mind about the word cleaned, because all of these -- the were pollutant if i'm not mistaken you use it in two different ways, pollutants meaning that things like mercure clean carbon carbon dioxide that of course we need in the air anyway. is there something about, something that epa can do to help clarify this for the public's mind perhaps? you spoke about a unified government approach.

this is often called the biggest, hardest problem, too big to see because obviously all of the other things you worry about me not get, going to be degraded in any case. the overriding problem that people are still having a hard time looking at. >> let me tell you this. i'm not sure it will help. greenhouse gas in those emissions will take a long time, decades for us to continue to see the impact that they have on our planet and they are global emissions, right? so there is a need to look at them, at least look at our actions in the context of the larger globe where as many of the pollutants that epa has tackled over its 40 year history are much more immediate than that. so i think the difference is in timeline and horizon and this isn't my idea. i've borrowed it from bill ruckles. it is much easier for people to

focus on and be politically or sort of community, community motivated to see action on something like acid rain or mercury or smog, because -- or so that. because it is impacting them right now. the challenge with greenhouse gases despite definition are actually at pollutant that the reason most people can't make that connection is that it is such a longtime friend and sort of a flow and hard to prove line. it may not always move straight in terms of effects, right? so if there is a huge flood was that global warming or was that the weather? we generally say that is the weather bad weather over decades is climate and climate change is what can produce sort of some of the worst impacts in terms of flooding or crop damage or changes. and so, i see the issue but i think what we are dealing with here is the immediacy of some

pollutants that are sort of people acknowledge our concern, and trying to link back to a much longer-term, sometimes more subtle changes that happen with greenhouse gas emissions. >> i am sorry, you just said that greenhouse gases are by definition a pollutant. what do you mean by that? >> actually the supreme court, in the decision it said listen, greenhouse gases or pollutants. >> co2 is a pollutant? >> under the definition of the clean air act, now epa it is up to you to determine whether this pollutants endanger public health or welfare and epa determined that they do but much of the concerns that you will hear, not, are about being able to make that finding definitively. overwhelmingly sciences say that the emissions of global warming gases are building up in atmosphere. that much he can prove and because those gases are building

up in the atmosphere and they stay there for such a long time it is claimed -- changing our climate. that that is going to lead to sea level change, some areas colder in some areas plumber. that is where going out to say 2050 or even 2030 and i think americans still have some level of insecurity. >> way back there. >> i served in the clinton administration as a new england administrator which was great fun. i hope you are having fun too. i wanted to just thank you for your leadership and the leadership of a terrific team. but also to ask you if you could speak a little bit about the agency's agenda for developing nations and the good work you are doing internationally. >> thanks, john and thanks for all your time at epa. we don't have an agenda for developing nations, but we do

have an international office. if a starter, i'm actually not sure, one of my chief historians here will know. that is right. what am i thinking? build still kind of hounds me that it is not one of our seven priorities that it is embedded in all of our work. and, the idea there is again, it goes back to the fact that when developing countries look at it, our system of governance, they are impious of our system of laws. they are envious of our permit program even though it doesn't quite always give the results we would like it too. it is still something they don't have so one of our main interactions in the developing world at their request, we do it when they requested, is in governing. in training and helping them to set up a system of governance that works for them. those are the discussions we are having with a number of countries that have had progress. there are countries, when i go

to international meetings, that i just want to thank thank your staff because i want to, without their help, without them being willing to share what they already know we would be 30 or 40 years behind. we were able to take a quantum leap forward and they learned stuff not to do because we don't do everything right the first time. we have also talked a lot -- we have six international priorities and i'm not going to be able to rattle them off because i'm nervous. but i would like to highlight electronic waste. the idea that our blackberries, cell phones, computers, our tv said we have to replace every so often end up somewhere and although we are hoping and one of my great hopes is that the electronic industry and all of our friends in that space will start to build equipment that comes apart, that allows us to reuse all of those rare earth metals and components that are in them. right now what happens too often

is it legally that equipment ends up in a developing country in asia or africa and people you know, do some pretty not nice things in order to get those rare medals back. there is gold, there is over. there are a lot of elements that and -- and those things they burn. i lived in an area in china that has 24,000 i think parts per million in the ground, huge dioxin levels because people often children are recovering that lead and gold and silver. so we as a country i think have an obligation to first manage that waste sustainably. we as the innovators and the manufacturers, the world leaders in those technologies need to think real hard about how to build the next-generation, one that can come apart and there is actually a national security reason to do it because we all watched the little dust-up recently over rare earth minerals in china and the fact that if any one country corners

the market on those minerals it affects everything from our electronic to solar panels, two and manufacturing. so we need to be able to be more independent even with respect to those feedstocks, so that is a huge one for us as well. we just had a really cool initiative on stilts with the clinton global initiative and the u.n. foundation. we announced that there. we have a goal of 100,000 homes by 2020 with clean cooking technology. most people don't realize that the act of cooking in the developing world usually it is a woman. may be her children inside are in an area burning materials. no ventilation. that act kills more people than malaria as many people have hiv/aids so we have an initiative to work with women in that culture to come up with a

culturally and principle technology. you can't take a cookstove the works in india and use it in parts of africa. you have defined what that technology will embrace. that is a really neat one for us as well. then we continue to want to work on other global warming pollution. this one is easy, bill. methane. methane is 20 times more of a global warming gas than co2 and also an energy source so in the developing world especially with waste management there is a huge opportunity to take what is right now being vented and contributing to our global emission problem and turning it into an energy source. so we are doing some work around that as well. >> in the back with the headphones i guess. >> my name is -- and i want to return quickly to the question of nutrient pollution, controlling that. you mentioned the path forward is joint states and individuals their actions can have impact, but i was wondering if you could

talk more about the cost aspect because have you done a cost analysis of what it will take to control that kind of pollution in this area? at the end of the day where's the money going to come from? i feel this is an issue that comes up anytime you try to do anything. >> how you pay for it is an important question. let me say two things about that. the first is, there are a number of people who do cost estimates around but the nutrient pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus. depends on who you decide to pick up the lion's share of the load. should it be people in housing developments who use mainly sewers, so their wastewater treatment plant when they get their monthly bill they pay all of that? should it be all agriculture or all folks who raise chickens or cows and pigs? should they do it all because after all they are probably the largest source, certainly close

to the largest depending on how you measure it. the answer is neither. ctivosolutionlet's find the is to use the incentives and help that is out there at the state and federal level along with leadership to implement what are really not that expensive measures in the agricultural sector. simple things like keeping your livestock out of streams, planting cover crops can make you a huge difference in the load of nutrients and to the extent that sector is able to pick up responsibility, to release responsibility from the other sector of the dozens eliminated. so now what can you do in the developed sector, housing or in urban areas or suburban areas? the first thing you can do is look at whether or not there are opportunities for green infrastructure which is much cheaper than building a new pipe. then you are going to need to look at smart investments in

wastewater for structure, the good old pipes and pump stations that actually handled the tree and pollution. all that has to be done and it is best done at the state level. so one of my hopes on the chesapeake is that what we end up with our strong state plans. the whole idea of the chesapeake is a unique state that is going to submit their plan for how they intend to make that balance between developed areas and burr areas, green agriculture and urban and suburban areas. and then we as epa have really only one job which is to ensure those plans are realistic, that they don't count on huge reductions in one sector at the expense of another and that then they are implemented. that is a real job and that is my hope. now the big controversy has come over what happens at the state doesn't submit a plan or submits one that is woefully inadequate? we will do what that but i have to say as we work with the states i think what is happening is that people love --

especially in maryland and virginia. maryland has taken a huge step forward in the past couple of years and we are working really hard with her chin and a couple of other states with a lot of help from the u.s. department of agriculture because they have funds. >> good morning. is great to be here. my name is jeff homestead and i served as epa form almost five years from 2000 to 2005 and i was proud to say was in the air office which does produce much more benefits than we just say any other part of the federal government. here is my question. epa has made enormous progress over the last 40 years, and most people would say that the low-hanging fruit has largely been harvested and now as we continue to try to clean up more and more we are finding that the next increment of pollution reduction does turn out to be more expensive and epa acknowledges that and all of its analysis. the next time is more expensive.

there is certainly concern in certain parts of the industry in a way that we are headed towards a future in which we really are the industrializing as the cost of the next increment gets higher and higher, that it just is no longer possible to have a significant manufacturing sector and epa even recently in a couple of rules has acknowledge that i think it is in the cement for example that a number of them can no longer stay open and meet the standards and then those plants go overseas where it is less expensive. as you look at this trade-off between getting that next increment and the possibility that you are simply going to be pushing people to make a cement in colombia or venezuela and shifted in, how do you examine those trade-offs and is that acceptable that essentially in order to have what we want here will essentially drive heavily manufactured to other countries?

>> i actually don't -- i'm not sure i agree with all the premise of your question. certainly we do look at the increment and cost of controlling. i believe very strongly that we are nowhere near having gotten all the low-hanging fruit, especially in the utility sector but in some other sectors as well. i would look at the cement as a real example of how we work really hard with the industry to minimize the impact on operating plants. there were only really a few and it has to do with their feedstock. it has feedstock so high in mercury that we really couldn't come up with a solution that didn't require them to either put very expensive controls on or to stop using that feedstock and since the manufacture tends to be located very near their feedstock that is a concern. but again it was because of mercury, so the equation to me is what is the public health

benefit and how much more does it cost? i think we are still very much in the one to 20 range especially under the clean air act so most of the benefits we are going to see now. all of our statutes are not that easy because it is a lot harder to quantify benefits sometimes under other statutes and that is where we have to be very very thoughtful. we are not mere near one-to-one yet, so we have a lot of space and the place that i am absolutely adamant is that i don't think they should ever be framed to people as okay do you want a job or do you want a clean environment? we are not there. we are nowhere near that line and we can't have both. companies have money. they are making record profits. we want them to invest and we want them to invest in pollution control technology. do make says healthier, make a stronger and if it is energy efficiency technology to make them stronger and more

competitive overseas. >> the environmental protection agency in his 40 years has been distinguished by many things but one of them is great environmental protection and that administrators so from bill ruckles to yourself it has been quite a history and i hope -- megan is a great pleasure to have you with the aspen institute. and engineer with a hartford is something the government needs. thank you very much, lisa jackson. [applause] forty years on epa a web site. thanks brain here. >> thank you, paul. >> have a great week. happy birthday. happy anniversary. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> ion pin gray educational specialist at c-span question. each year we conduct our documentary competition called studentcam. the competition as students in grades six through 122 think critically about issues affecting our nation. this year's theme is washington d.c. through my lens. we chose this topic because we like it to explain how the federal government has affected an issue or event in your life or your community.

select a topic that interests you. once you have your topic you can begin your research. the goal is for you to fully develop and researcher topic, provide different points of view and include c-span footage that supports your theme and a five to eight minute documentary. former information visit our web site, studentcam.org or e-mail us any questions you have that educated at c-span.org. go get started. we can't wait to see what you can do. >> british chancellor of the exchequer george osborne was before the house of commons monday to announce the government's economic growth forecast and public finances. two months ago the british government unveiled significant budget cuts. this is two hours. speedwell, i think i contained that it is time for the statement. mr. george osborne.

>> thank you very much mr. speaker. i would like to make a statement regarding the office for budget responsibilities first autumn forecast. i will also, with your permission mr. speaker, inform the house about further measures the government is taking to support economic growth, including the new growth review launched today and a far-reaching program of reform for corporate tax system and following esther's announcement by european finance ministers i would like to take the first opportunity to discuss the irish situation in the uk's involvement. first b.o.p. are's autumn forecast. copies of their reforms are made available in the office earlier today. mr. speaker we should take a moment to recognize the significance of this occasion and a practical demonstration of this government's commitment to transparency and independent forecasting. today is the first time this house will engage in debate

about that forecast produced by bye bye the independent office of budget responsibility rather than the exchequer today and it was available to members to read two hours before the statement. this is also the first forecast by the new independent chair of the ob are with other members of the budget responsibility committee, steven nickel and graham parker whose appointments were approved by all treasury select committee members from both sides of this house. and as a result i am sure the country can have full confidence in the independence of these forecast. they were ford published today include some 150 pages of information and an unprecedented level of detail and transparency, much of that of the kind available to previous governments but never before published. so i did like to thank the budget responsibility committee and the obr for their hard work in putting together this awesome forecasts and i hope we now entrench this major improvement

in the make enough fiscal policy by policy and the legislation re currently before parliament.sp while today's figures are of course in the pen then, they ard still just forecast, and they au utiontreat them with a degree of caution that one should treatd t any or economic forecast. indeed the obr so explicit about this illustrating beyond illuste uncertainty surrounding any economic forecast with the use of charts, rather than claiming and valuable certainty my previous assessors asserted when they provided their forecasts. the only thing that was infallible was that the political forecasts were usually wrong. with that caution in mind, let me turn to the forecast. after the deepest recession since the war, the greatest budget deficit and the biggest banking crisis of our lifetime, a recovery was going to be more challenging than the previous recessions, but the message for office for budget responsibility

is that britain's economic recovery is on track. the economy is growing and jobs are being graded and the deficit is falling. -- jobs are being created and the deficit is falling. employment and g.d.p. are high year in every quarter and in every year than in the june forecast. at a time when markets are gripped by fears about government finances of crossed europe, today we see the government was absolutely right to take a divisive -- decisive action to take the britain economy out of the financial danger zone. britain is on course to grow the economy and balance the votes. something some people repeatedly said it could not have been. let me take the house. the detail of the forecast. the forecast the economy are brought in line with those produced in the june budget, despite the challenge and

international conditions. i also points out there very similar to the european commission forecasts, which also happen to be published today. and it is forecasted that britain will grow faster than germany, france, japan, the united states of america and the european union. the forecast real gdp growth of 1.8% this year, 2.1% next year. 2.6% in 2012. 2.7% in 2015. growth this year is not expected to be considerably tighter than was forecast in june. and some of this improvement is likely to be permanent since some of it made a temporary impact to stop building. as a result of its forecast of the rate of growth all be 0.2 percentage points below the forecast in june. they also predict above trend growth for the full year after that.

and the level of gdp is forecast to be around half a percent higher next year than was forecast in june and indeed higher throughout the whole forecast time. mr. speaker, some have made predictions of the so-called double-dip recessions. while it is pointed out that the growth has been volatile but this is a common characteristic of post-recession recovery, the central view is there will be no double-dip recession. the forecast is for growth texture of more than 2%. and they expect the slowest quarter of growth will be 0.3% rising back to 0.7% by the leader quarter of next year. rthey also forecast inflation ball all, 3.2% in 2010 to 1.9% in 2012. crucially the forecasts of

gradual rebalancing of the economy as we move away from an economy built on debt to an economy where it reinv to an economy where we invest again, something some people said would not happen. and they expect more demand come -- to come from british investment. this new model of sustainable economic growth will rebalance the economy towards investment and exports and away from an unhealthy dependence on private debt and public deficit. it will bring to an end to the unsustainable situation where family saw less and less each year so they ended up in the worst in the report today darling money to pay for increasingly expensive houses.

employment is forecast to grow in every year of this parliament. total employment is expected to rise from 29 million to 30.1 million, over 1 million additional new jobs. and on unemployment banks to faster than expected growth in the economy, the rate is slightly lower this year at 7.9% instead of 8.1%. the forecast for the unemployment rate is unchanged from the june budget at 8%. they predict a gradual decrease in unemployment with a rate falling every year. at the end of the parliament year we are forecast to report just about 6%, half a million fewer unemployed people and at the beginning of this parliament. the trend is similar to that of the internationally recognized labor forecast measure of unemployment. however, the level is expected to be high year. this revision is mainly due to a

change in the wake of clothes from her allowance will give place as a result of the new high in assessments. and in other words, more people are going to go on to jsa's. this will create a welfare system that encourages people to seek work and reduce costs to the taxpayer. in each year, fewer people are expected to be on both of these out of work benefits than in the june forecast. i can also tell the forecasts that they have now recalculated estimates for the reduction in headcount in the public sector. in june the forecast of the reduction in headcount of 490,000 over the next four

years. in the latest forecast assessment bridgette assessment has come down to 160,000 reduction. -- and the latest forecast the assessment has downtown 160,000. the heck are reduction still need to take place and will happen over four years. the forecast is private sector job creation will far outweigh the reduction and public-sector employment. it is in line with the employment trends in the 1990's. the most important point is this. the lesson of what is happening all around us in europe is that

that unless we deal decisively with a record budget deficit, many thousands of more jobs will be put at risk in the private and public sector. mr. speaker, let me summarize the forecast for the public finances, which shows that britain is decisively in dealing with its debt. barrowing this year is expected to be 1 billion pounds less than forecast in june. -- borrowing this year is expected to be 1 billion pounds less than forecasted in june. government debt as a share of gdp is expected to people low 70% in 2013. the debt ratio is expected to peak at a low point compared to june, just below 70%. on the central forecast we will meet the fiscal mandate to eliminate the structural current budget deficit when year early in 2014. at the same is true to get debt

falling as a percentage of gdp. the government has a quite rigid a wider merger -- has all wider mandate for managing this. in both cases the mandate is met. mr. speaker, it is clear that our decisive actions have proved to the world that britain can live within her means. this government has taken britain out of the financial dangers and said our economy on the path to recovery. that is not only the judgment of the zero vr, it is the judgment of the imf, the european commission, the bank of england and all the major business organizations in this country. already our efforts are paying off. today's forecast shows the cost of servicing the government's debt has come down.

it is predicted we will save 19 billion pounds in interest payments between now and the end of forecasts time. this is 19 billion that will no longer be paid british taxpayers to private bondholders and foreign governments. it is 19 billion pounds that would have been wasted and will now be saved. this is an uncertain world but the british recovery is on track. employment is growing. 1 million more jobs are being created. the deficit is set to fall. the plan is working. we will stick to the course, and that is only too well confidence to flourish in growth to return. i urge those who seriously suggest that when they see what is happening to our neighbors across europe that we should abandon the the size of plan we're following and are more and spend more to think again. what they propose would be disastrous to the british economy. it will put us back in the international line we have worked so hard to escape from.

it would mean higher deficits and job loss and we should reject that path. stability is a necessary condition growth but not enough. our economy's competitiveness has been in decline for over a decade. that is why we have already announced annual reductions in corporation tax, cut the small companies rate, expanded loan guarantees, invested in an apprenticeship and promoted exports through a major trade mission. let me set out some of the other things that we are announcing today to support growth and the rebalancing of our economy. i set out a plan to reduce the main rate or a corporation tax to 24%. -- asset at a plan to reduce corporation tax to 24% sen.

the proposed to make the u.k. and even more attractive location for international business by reforming the outdated and complex rules for control of foreign companies. we have seen a steady stream of companies cut that left the u.k. over the years. we're not content to sit by and watch our competitors reach away on our corporate tax state undermined. n.y. another tax issue a corporal -- of crucial importance intellectual property. for a long time we have argued we should increase incentives the ability to develop new products in this country. to encourage businesses to invest in the u.k., we can confirm that we will introduce from april 2013, although or 10% corporate tax rate on properties that are newly commercialized. i can tell the house that the results of this measure, glaxo

smithkline will announce a new 500 million pound investment program in the uk. including new manufacturing, a 50 billion down -- 50 million pound venture-capital plan. and build a new biopharmaceutical plants in this country. in total they estimate of 1000 new jobs will be created in the u.k. over the lifetime of these projects. and today we are also launching across government growth review. this will be determined forensic examination of however government can do more to remove growth opportunities. too often the national inclination is an opposite direction, creating new regulations and putting up barriers and mormaking life more difficult.

together with the business department, the treasury will lead an intensive program of work, including all parts of governments. we will identify requirements that can benefit the whole economy, specific priority will be given to improvement of the planning system in support for the exporters of. at the same time we will begin a new sector by sector focus on removing barriers of growth and opportunity predict opening at new opportunities. -- and opening new opportunities. pricked by bricks we will remove the barriers that are holding britain back. -- bricks by bricks we will remove the barriers that are holding britain back. i attended the european meetings in brussels yesterday.

we agreed a three-year package for ireland's fourth 85 billion euros, which is warranted to safeguard financial stability. of that 35 billion euros, copy used -- 35 billion will be used to support the banking sector with 10 billion going to a canadian bank recapitalization and 50 billion will be used for sovereign debt support. ireland will contribute 17.5 billion towards the so bragtotal package. the terms of the imf loan will be determined over the coming weeks. in principle the bilateral loan is for 3.2 5 billion pounds. the rate of interest on the loan will be similar to their rates levied by the imf and the euro

zone. this loan to ireland is in britain's national interest. it will help arkoses economic partners manage their with the difficult conditions. i should also tell the house that the euro zone finance ministers met without me to discuss a permanent financial stability facility, and i made it clear as a subsequent meeting pet the u.k. will not be part of that. the u.k. will not be part of a permanent bailout mechanism, and the european financial stability mechanism agreed under the previous government and day and of which we are parts, will cease to exist when that permit it euros on mechanism is put in place. when we came into office britain was in the financial pages own. the economy was on stable. our public finances were out of control. >> the chancellor must be heard.

>> our economy was unstable. the finances work out of control. we took decisive action. the independent office for budget responsibility has confirmed that the british recovery is on track. our public finances are under control. 1 million jobs are set to be created. today we took further measures to secure growth and promote stability. britain is on the mend, and i commend this statement for the house. >> mr. speaker, let's move to reality. here's what the ovr says. as we discussed in chapters 3 and 4, past experience and common sense suggest that the central forecast for economy and the public finances are almost

certain to be role. there are upside and downside risk to both. the only question is on which side of wrong that actually fall. this government has committed our country to our rate of fiscal consolidation that has only been attempted twice in living memory. on both occasions by countries that benefit from strong growth and a benign global environment. no country has attempted to cut so quickly so deeply of good and ireland. we have the highest fiscal deficit in the g-20. not true. the u.s. has a personal lehigh year in fiscal deficit. the plan to reduce it by less than half over the next five years. -- they plan to reduce it by less than half over the next five years. japan cuts by less than a quarter. the chancellor has talked chosen to take an unprecedented gamble

with people's lives and the country's future. he has done so on the basis of fundamental defeat -- deceit. the ovr expos that deceit last year and they have exposed it today. all of those stories claiming their constituents that things were worse than they expected and said they have never had it so good, will he tell em t .. in his statement today can high death mask that it is the balanced approach of my right hon. friend that solid growth return at the beginning of the year. small growth return at the beginning of the year and the

recovery growing momentum and a < million people growing -- claiming it out of work benefits than previously projected. that was the previous chancellor not this one. this is an approach to it that this government has rejected. the reckless gamble that member support is still to come. the chancellor is in the casino but has lost a bundle will get. it is the ovr's judgment of the future that matters more than their resizerevised forecast ofe year that is almost over. they are explicit. they expect a slow recovery next year as spending cuts begin to take effect.

looking beyond next year, the forecast for growth over the next four years is reduced to an average of 2.4%. this compares to the 3.1% average growth of the recessions in the 1980's and 99 k.i.a.'s. this growth was driven largely by growth in the financial sector and in public services, both of which will not be in a position to help this time. low growth means -- no growth means fewer jobs. unemployment will rise next year. no wonder the conservatives level of government association pointed out last week the front- loading cuts in local authorities will lead to 140,000

job losses next year, much higher than originally expected. the increase on january 4 will cost 215,000 jobs. over three times as many as the proposed increase on national insurance, which it called a tax on jobs. the chancellor tells us of public-sector jobs will be protected by his decision to cut welfare benefits, but this works both ways. can he tell the house what additional hit to private sector jobs is from those welfare changes? the families up and down this country, a jobless recovery will be no recovery at all. this government has no interest in protecting jobs, no alternative measures. worst of all, no plan for jobs. indeed just last week, a growth plan actually trunkshrunk.

there will be a debate. there will be a discussion. the government's plan relies on a huge increase in exports. let's hope to materialize. it is it a gambla gamble. -- let's hope they materialize. exports need markets and there's nothing to suggest that the global economic climate will assist us in achieving of boost to growth. he has abolished investment allowances from manufacturing to pay for a cut in corporation tax. a tax that would give 1 billion pounds to the banks. can he tell us what sense there is in helping companies that make large profits but little investments at the expense of businesses that will invest heavily in the uk?

we were very pleased to hear his announcement on the patent office. we were very pleased because it was our proposal. it was lord dyson that are due this in cabinet. and that is why it was in last year's report. and it was an excellent proposal. it was a labor proposal. here is i -- here is our idea. they will give an 80 million pound loan to the market. there is an idea they can chew over a for the next four months. the chancellor talk about developments on ireland. we support the financial assistance offered to ireland, at the lessons cannot be ignored. a slower pace of consolidation might have been ireland's best

bet at encouraging growth. that is a lesson for us as well. the chancellor's analytical ability was demonstrated in his 2008 article that has been quietly posted. here he is again in 2008 confident that ireland were not be affected by definition of crisis that was just emerging. and here is what the chancellor said. ireland now has a future fund assets fell to provide security against future shocks and liabilities. their public finances are well placed. their competitiveness has risen. their institutions are strong growth. -- are stronger. he was wrong a lot ireland, and he is wrong about the uk. -- wrong about ireland and he is wrong about the uk.

>> yes, well, the first point i made is that the icing the chancellor made the mistake of writing at his reply before he saw the forecast today. he predicted it all, somehow they're being lowered growth when in fact growth is higher in every quarter and in every year than the june forecast. in i assumed he wrote his statement before the european commission forecasts because he had a whole list of countries. the european commission forecasts of a the next few years we will grow more quickly than germany and france s, the united states of america, japan, the euro zone and the eu average. you might as well start with the most accurate forecast for the economy. as i say, it is not much of an analysis of what they've said today.

of course, he skated over the fact that because of a welter changes we introduced, we have been able to introduce the head count reduction, which any deficit-reduction program, assuming the one he will propose, as required. he should at least acknowledge that the welfare changes to achieve that, and his party leader calls them very important choices about whether they will support welfare reform or would rather see a higher public sector dop losses. -- job losses. he said he did not believe in the rebalancing of the economy. the assumptions for exports and investment i made were pitiful. they are the estimates made by pimm independent body, whose members were -- that their appointment ratified by the select committee.

he accused me of having no alternative measures. [laughter] as far as i can tell the have a blank sheet of paper as the new economic policy. they talked about the importance of protecting intellectual property and supporting the fourth of bonds and then praised the work of james dyson, who last time i checked with someone we consulted rather than him. lord drayson also had some interesting things to say. since -- i should also welcomed by the way -- >> members really must calm down. the noise and the chamber was off-putting. the public notice it, sodalite.

let's put an end to it. so goes of the chancellor. >> on ireland's i do of course welcome the support that opposition has given to the decision we have taken to offer a bilateral loans. we have will have to bring legislation before the house. -- we will have to bring legislation before the house. i should have mentioned that sweden and denmark have also provided bilateral loans. i come back to the point, which is that this forecasts shows a million new jobs being created over the next four or five years. it shows the economy rebalancing. all he could come up with is that he renad an editorial last week, and i note that that is how he does his homework. he photocopies of articles from "the ft."

. . it's obvious from the back bench of the front alike. mr. andrew tightly. >> the redbook was forecasting that the savings ratio would remain broadly steady at about 6% for the next five years. that's quite the long average for the previous four years. on page 67 of this document, the new forecast assumes the afforded the same ratio to just over half that and for the remainder of the parliament to only 3%. is the chancellor worried about that for the ratio and really consider measures to redress?

and >> yes, i of course in theething forecast for the savings ratio and it is something that we want to address. it has the same ratio returningi tots it average that it was befe the recession came. and i think all people and allan parties of the house and certainly government will want to find ways to encourage savins more effectively than there was the case in the past.problem. >> what is the forecast for the gap between the richest and poorest in britain by 2015? does the chancellor and the obr expect that to grow? >> i am not aware that the obr made that forecast. obviously, everything we're doing, whether it is increasing provision for some of the poorest two-year-olds terms of free and tertiary care for their people premium, are encouraged -- of health care and pupil

premium -- >> with the make all liquidity available -- will they make all liquidity available, as they should do? >> the european central bank is independent. i will not speak for them. what i said about the european financial stability mechanism is that we now have a verbal agreement that that mechanism will not formed a permanent part of the bailout mechanism that euro wants to put -- the euro's own wants to put in place. we will not be part of that bailout mechanism. it would require consent for any change. >> i thank the chancellor for his statement. it can ask him what assurances he has received from ireland to

ensure that the multi-billion- loan will not be given to allow a fire sale of assets they now own? can he indicate what progress he has made with the northern ireland executive on regard to the corporate tax so that we can compete fairly with a nation that has a 12.5% corporation tax attached to it? >> on the irish bank restructuring package, this is now going to take several weeks, at least, to put in place. we are very aware, of course, of the interconnectedness of the banking systems of ireland, northern ireland, and local uk that is one of the reasons why we are making this bilateral contribution. that is why we're discussing the banking package. i certainly am conscious that

some of the irish banks of significant assets in the u.k. and we have very real interest in the future of that. it is why, my honorable friend the financial secretary, -- why he came to ireland earlier this week. i want the treasury and secretary of state to remain in close contact with members from northern ireland. on a corporation tax -- this has been genuinely a matter of debate. i do not think that has been secret. it has been in the newspapers. in the european union, some member states wanted to attach a condition to arlen's or petition tax rate -- ireland's corporation tax rate. it is a real challenge for companies in northern ireland with that will 0.5% and corporation tax rate. -- with that 0.5% corporation tax rate. i took a position which was, it is not really for other member

states to dictate the tax rates of sovereign nations, even when they are seeking international assistance. the level -- the rate that tax is levied by the irish government should be a matter for the irish government and the irish parliament. if the shoe was on the other foot, we would not want to be accepting decisions imposed on this parliament about tax rates. this should be a matter for the elected parliament of the country. i do not deny it is a challenge for the northern ireland -- for northern ireland, -- that will 0.5% rate. -- for northern ireland, about 12.5% rate. >> will this not create new opportunities for tax avoidance? >> i can assure that we will seek to avoid that -- tax avoidance.

it is there to keep pace with the changes in corporate tax regimes, which have been introduced in many other countries. ireland is just one that we've been talking about. you see this in belgium and the netherlands, where they also made corporate tax changes to attract international companies. we have to keep pace with those changes. that is why we are taking the measures that we are. >> george mahmudi. >> the chancellor -- george moody. >> official said this is because of a lack of serious content. -- officials say that this is because of a lack of serious content. >> we have published a series of documents. some of them on corporate tax reform, some on intellectual

property, and some on the budget -- that is what the white paper does. proposes measures that will then be legislated for. we'll have measures to address the competitiveness of british industry that will specifically look at things like the competition regime, the approach we take to attracting inward investment, how we improve our employment elie doebele and alike, and look at specific fixes -- how we improve our theoyment outlook and like, and look at specific fixes. he is welcome to be involved. >> isn't the strength of these forecasts that they were prepared by individualx/ >> that is a very significant feature of what is happening today. it is completely unprecedented

for a chancellor to present a forecast that has been produced independently by people verified by the all-party treasury select committee who have their own separate press conference. members have had a couple of hours to look at these documents. if you think back to a couple of years ago and the numbers that were rattled off, you had no opportunity to look at those documents. it was the chancellor's judgment, rather than an independent judgment. i think this is a major improvement to the fiscal policy making in this country. i hope when it comes to the house of commons it will have all-party support. >> why is the irish bank worth saving yet northern rock was not? among the irish banks are getting capital -- >> the irish banks are getting, in many cases, a capital injection.

we had poorly regulated banks. we're improving our regulation system. frankly, if the honorable member does not think we should be supporting the irish banking system, then the impact of his proposals would be very severe. >> he called this slow growth in the, -- in the coming years. does he agree that private- sector led growth is exactly what the u.k. needs after the bubble that was previously burst? >> i think he makes an extremely good point. what is actually happening here is a rebalancing of the economy. the shadow chancellor, i hear he is muttering away about what he calls low growth. it is actually more rapid, according to the european commission forecast, then germany, france, the u.s.a.,

japan, the eu average, the euro zone average, and i am not sure what his proposals are that would increase that growth rate. if you have some, now is the time to produce them. >> most public-sector cuts will take place in the north. any jobs that are created -- not likely to be many -- will be in the south. is this policy unbalanced? >> in the last decade, in the government that he was a member of, for every 10 jobs created in the southeast, only one was created in the midlands and the north. that is the situation we inherited and it is the situation we're trying to change. we want is the export and investment increase. we are aiming for a more geographically-balance model of economic growth. i can tell you that announcements like the one today and the events that follow will

help that. for the third time ever, there is a tax cut for new employees specifically directed at regions outside of the south. >> my right honorable friend did never tires of reminding those opposite that this recession, like all previous post-war recessions, it is a recession built on debt. you cannot borrow your way out of debt. >> i can assure my honorable friend that i will not tire of reminding the opposition of that. as i come forward with new economic policy, -- they come forward with new economic policy, i would be happy to examine it, but there is nothing to examine. >> he sees private sector growth being driven by investment and export. in the obie our's report today reportl be our -- obr's today, we see dramatic

uncertainties in the euro zone. if this does not turn out to be as expected, where does the chancellor see private-sector growth coming from? >> the first point i would make is that, of course, one of the primary tasks of the obr is to address whether we will hit the fiscal mandates. they're not a matter of controversy. they show what we've done to get the british finances under control. under this scenario that is volunteered, they say that this the mandates will be met under those conditions. it helps the fiscal forecast rather than perverts it because the tax base is more focused for consumption. >> when the books are balance, will the chancellor seriously look at reducing the overall burden of taxation? it is just far too high. >> i would say to my honorable

friend that i am the leader in trying to reduce the tax burden and reduce taxes. i have always believed the best way to achieve this is stable public finances. otherwise you cut them one year and have to put them up the next. i am a fiscal conservative as well as a tax-cutting conservative. >> i refer to the center he came to my honorable friend. chancellor, through the obr, is suggesting there will be 8% growth in business investment, yet [unintelligible] it suggested will increase by 6% in the next four years. according to the government of the bank of england, there are real doubts about whether the euro area or in the united states will deliver the sort of export growth that has been suggested. it is not -- is not the

chancellor just a little bit worried about the of the present in these estimates? is he concerned that they will be delivered -- about the optimism in these estimates? is he concerned that there will be delivered on in the next four years? among these are independent forecasts -- >> these are independent forecasts. he is not in anyone's pocket. it is totally independent. i believe he is on the treasury select committee he interviewed the man for this job. he passed him. these are not my estimates. these are other people's estimates. they made the forecast. he says there is scant evidence. that is not what the office for but responsibility believes. they are independent. -- for budget her responsibility believes. -- that is not what the office for budget responsibility believed. they are independent.

>> is a taxpayer support ending up supporting professional bond and equity holders in banks? this has been one of the most difficult issues we have had to wrestle with. it is not possible to hold the senior shareholders responsible for taking a hair cut, which did happen in some of the u.s. bank rescues, with pretty disastrous effects. that is why that decision was taken. some shareholders will suffer losses as i think is appropriate. >> given that the newest year for production in the report

suggests that growth will surpass the previous predictions. it was 2.6%, 2.3% trend, 2.1%. what hope can we have that predictions are want to be any more reliable? is it not the case, in fact, that growth will not rise as much as predicted? >> i said right at the beginning of my remarks that these are economic forecasts, that we should treat them with the caution that one should treat all economic forecasts. i it least explicitly acknowledge that. these have been independently produced. these are central forecast. this is not a forecast come hell or high water. it is in line with most

independent commentators, forecasters, happens to be close to the european commission numbers which were produced today and were not available to the obr or british government until today. we had -- have confidence that they are part of a people who look to the u.k. and see it growing sustainably over the coming years and the jobs being created. >> all talk is of cuts. with spending still rising, despite these so-called cuts and with that as a proportion of gdp rising to a staggering 70%, will my right honorable friend remind the house of the coin a phrase, there is no alternative to further massive efficiency savings, particularly in health? >> i certainly agree with my honorable friend that an essential part of this program

of a public expenditure is that we get greater productivity in the public services. he is the former chair of that committee and has much to offer. treasury is engaging with him on this, i hope, and will engage further with him in the coming months. he is absolutely right. when there is less money available, if you do not have reform, then we will have a deterioration in the service. that is why we have to back reforms. that is why we're supporting those reforms. >> the office of budget responsibility is forecasting a relatively sluggish medium-term which, it says, reflects the impact of the government's fiscal consolidation. can the chancellor confirmed that it follows that, if the government's fiscal consolidation, have been less severe, and the medium-term

outlook would be less sluggish? in other words, he has cut too far, too fast? >> the short answer is no. obviously, what we have inherited was a very deep recession, a major banking crisis and a record fiscal deficit. i thought that, once i was assured across the parties that this was common ground, that we should use the link to address the fiscal deficit. the letter o the letter be the latter are -- the obr did produce a comparison to the current and previous government plans. over time, it was a much more sustainable path to growth and would avoid the downside risk of a major fiscal event, which,

frankly, a major loss of confidence in the u.k. pick aboutnot having to worry the uk's credit worthiness of their, unlike some other countries in the european union -- out there, unlike some other countries in the european union. we have sustainable growth and jobs being created. >> thank you, mr. speaker. could the chancellor tell us his assessment of what would happen if we ignored the imf -- you -- the imf-eu and moved toward putting our own house in order? >> would happen if you actually did this tomorrow? if the shadow chancellor bought out tomorrow and told me to

adopt his plan and the u.k. would back off its fiscal consolidation program, it would take much longer. we're with the u.k. be within 30 minutes after that statement? >> the number of losses of jobs in the public sector has been revised downward. i'm very concerned that the $18 billion -- about the 18 billion pounds. was that an explicit decision a policy by the chancellor? does he think that is fair? >> a, i do, of course, think this pending review was fair. at i said at the time, if they would produce an actual spending review, maybe we could compare, but they do not want to do that. i said to the budget and spending a rebuke that i would make you a code decision to try

to seek further -- and the spending review that i would try to make further changes. this is a challenge that anyone doing my job would face. we need to reduce the cuts in departments. that is what we were able to do. >> norman? >> may i congratulate the office of budget responsibility on a fairly transparent, comprehensive, an excellent report, which i think is up first in this country. can you give us an assessment of any remaining threats that you seek a final stanza -- financial stability from the ural zone countries? >> of course there is a concern about the high deficits in the euro zone. let us hope that the action taken yesterday to stabilize ireland and also the clarification that era's own ministers offered about the

future permanent bailout mechanism and the involvement of private sector credit within that will help achieve that. that is certainly what the intention was yesterday. >> they will announce proposals for cuts will likely loss of 400 jobs. this will have a devastating effect on my constituents. it will also lead to a loss of confidence by those who have jobs that they will have jobs in the future. this might well lead to grow up and on their part to spend money in the economy? -- economy. is the concern that could affect the new jobs and future growth? >> i have enormous sympathy with anyone who faces a job loss. what i would say is we're creating economic conditions where they will be -- there will be able to find a new job, i

hope. we expect a 1 million new jobs to be created over the coming year. i would make this observation to the honorable lady, who i think was the parliamentary private secretary to the previous chancellor. if the government had been reelected, they would be cutting billions and billions of pounds from public spending this year, next year, in the years ahead. that was in the budget. if she was able to find a way of many billions pounds without damaging local government, she should say so. and i welcomed the reform -- >> i welcome the reform. will this be scrutinized? >> the short answer is yes.

one specific thing we want to look at is how government should be helping businesses grow. that includes procurement. government spends too much of its money on the largest companies in the country. not enough within the smaller. that is one of the things we're trying to improve. >> on public sector jobs, the chancellor says that the numbers are up. some projections show that this is front loading. will the chancellor look at [unintelligible] so that we do not see those jobs losses next year? >> i said at the time it was a challenging settlement. i have removed some of the ring fencing to allow the maximum flexibility to deal with that. this country was borrowing 1

pound for every four it was spending. we can see what happens to countries with high budget deficit and no plan to deal with them. the labour party wants to put forward a plan to reduce local deficit. >> we welcome the announcement he made. can you tell us more about the tax competitive measures you are doing to help the country? >> i have made no announcements. i can certainly say no more. >> we're looking at two is a civic things -- to do specific things that we believe will help encourage large multinationals -- two as of the things that we

believe will help bridge a large american nationals -- two specific things that we believe will help multinationals come to the u.k. countries are being aggressive in trying to attract companies. these tax measures will make as one of the most competitive places in the world to locate headquarters. on the patent and lower corporation tax rate -- this announcement is just one of many from companies that depend on that to power their business. it will make is very competitive to other countries. >> mr. speaker, obr has confirm that we will borrow 1 billion pounds less.

apparently we could not afford to make it 80 million pound loan. the chancellor has deliberately [unintelligible] these policies are now damaging the british economy. >> i think that was one that was prepared earlier. first of all, the u.k. growth is forecast to be higher than germany, france, or many other european countries, and the united states of america. it is also a case that the forecast in question creates a million jobs. when it comes to the sovereign loan to ireland, that is of a totally different nature from industrial support. it will be set out in terms brought before the house of commons. it is 3.25 billion pounds, not the number he gave.

>> he has 34 -- reinforced the need for exports to help our recovery. what can he do to personally help reverse the situation whereby we currently export more to southern ireland than we do to all of the brick countries put together -- bric countries put together? >> that is one of the focuses of foreign and trade policy. we have tried to increase our exports to those countries. the prime minister laid -- led major trade delegates visits to india and china. business secretary was recently in russia. i think a trip has been proposed for brazil. referring to those countries and other important emerging economies like indonesia and turkey, we are seeking to expand our exports. we do not want to export less to

anyone in those areas, we just want to increase our exports to emerging areas. >> we know that the deficit was paid to avoid a depression, a chance that would not fade. first and foremost, profit, jobs, growth statutes. secondly, taxation. thirdly, savings over a longer time. this will cast millions of work. it will be -- who these will be unnecessary. >> that was a complete load of nonsense. what is independent forecasts shows is that we're creating a million jobs. the economy is growing more

quickly open next couple of years and most of our european competitors. the situation was absolutely catastrophic. people were calling into question britain's ability to pay. if that is the situation we have inherited, we have done many things, in the last six months, and to make sure the british economy is on the mend. >> i am sure the whole house welcomes this chart which shows there is almost no probability of a double-dipped recession. with the chancellor agree with that forecast? -- would the chancellor agree with that forecast? >> it is, of course, an independent forecasts. while i have the right to disagree, i have not exercised that right today. >> what were the things offered

to end housing targets? does the chance cannot accept that a private-sector- lod -- will the chancellor not except that a private-sector led -- >> that is one of the sectors we're looking at as set out in the review published today. if i can just correct him, the capital investment program is actually higher than the program from the march budget. if he is not aware of that, so be it. >> mr. speaker, i welcome my right honorable friend's statement today, particularly the forecast where it sees projected public-sector job losses dropping. based on that 490,000 figure,

previously, price waterhouse coopers projected 1 million jobs, would he like to comment on the reduced impact on private-sector unemployment as a result of the new projected job losses and the public sector? >> of course, the projection is made for private sector employment as well. it takes into account all of the potential impacts on that and finds that a net 1.1 million jobs are going to be created. there will be 30 million people on unemployment at the end of the parliament, rather than 29 million the day. >> [unintelligible] what other cultivating measures is he considering? >> we have created the regional

growth fund to look at areas in need of support and investment. we have been able to announce some significant transport investment in other parts of our country. you mentioned the national tax reduction outside of the southeast and southeastern area. i am trying to create a more geographically-balanced economy than i found when i took the job. >> it is clear from the response that the party opposite is still in denial of the huge deficit they have created. i congratulate, mr. speaker, my right honorable friend for creating a viable and workable, transparent plan. could i go back to the permanent fiscal stability facility? what will happen if another euro zone country requires a bailout?

>> first of all, i don't know my honorable friend for his comments. i would say this about -- i'd thank my honorable friend for is common. i would say that the bilateral loan -- there is a very specific, and i stress the word specific, circumstance that would lead us to support ireland for the interconnectedness of our economies. i also said that the european financial stability mechanism -- the eu fund -- was something that the previous government had signed up to that the u.k. could not block its use because it operated under to and the -- under qmb. i think that this mechanism will disappear in 2013. we have taken a bad situation and make it a lot better.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. can the chancellor tell whether ireland's fiscal consolidation has been successful? >> i think the point i would make -- ireland has had to take some incredibly difficult decisions to deal with its this goal deficit. it has announced, with the support of all the major parties, with the exception of sin fein, that it will have to take further austerity measures. we should have some respect for the incredibly difficult situation that ireland finds itself in and actually take some comfort that we, in this house, are able, because of the measures we a taken in our public finances, to help this country. we're on the firing line -- not in the firing line in the way we did -- we might have been in

this party had not won the election. >> despite the extensive naysaying from the party opposite, is of the chancellor aware of this recent report -- is the chancellor aware of this recent report that businesses and the northwest are looking to expand -- in the northwest are looking to expand? what will be the expectation for job creation? >> we have a. boyd that increase in the small company rate at the previous government wanted to introduce even in the recovery. we have been able to avoid damaging part of the jobs tax. the forecast is for jobs to be created in the private sector, across the country, including in the northwest. frankly, as one could see, the labor party wanted to talk down the economy.

it is no wonder they were rejected at the election. >> he is talking a complete load of nonsense, as he put it earlier. looking across the irish sea, what does he -- a private sector recovery has not happened in ireland. why should it be different here? >> if the honorable gentleman cannot tell the difference between those situations, then maybe he should not turn up at these events. i would just make this observation -- this is an independent report, produced by an individual. from the opposition front bench about the independence of the office about it responsibility. we set this up on an independent

basis, giving up four members of the treasury the select committees and rights to approve or reject the appointment of the members of the committee. we will see whether opposition members, including those on the front bench, support this legislation when it comes before parliament. at the moment, it does not sound like it will, but perhaps they will change their mind. >> is my right honorable friend as concerned as i and that the prospective regulations proposed by the retail distribution review, might actually result in a loss of jobs? >> i know there are a number of concerns that have been raised about the review of this area. they are an independent regulator. these have been drawn to their attention. >> does this apparent good news mean that the government can now [unintelligible]

by scrapping plans to hike university tuition fees. or is it pure ideology? is that what it is about? >> this issue is about the hypocrisy of the labour party. they set up that report he was in the cabinet that agreed to that. they're all now walking away from it. it is absolutely pathetic. >> the predict on page 118, table 4.21, that we will save $19 billion in -- 19 billion pounds in interest payments. of these the right choices? do we have this 19 billion to

spend on schools, rather than putting in the pocket of private government or bondholders? >> he is absolutely right. this is one of the issues that is less commented on, but a very relevant. we are reducing the debt interest payments that we inherited from the party opposite. we had a situation where the debt interest, the money that we have to pay out to those we have borrowed from -- that bill is coming down by 19 billion pounds. we would otherwise have followed the leader baathist -- the labour's plan. we have other plans for taxpayer money. >> read the then lend to ireland to repay the ecp -- rather than lend to ireland to repay the ecp -- ecb, might it not bit

more sense to help ireland deleveraging by purchasing some assets directly? >> that we say this to my honorable friend -- let me say this to my honorable friend. i think this had to be part of a coordinated international effort with the imf and the other european member states. we have taken apart in that. we have our own the -- i do not think coming out with our own unilateral package would of been particularly easy with the imf organizing international effort. i've said earlier that we will, of course, want to look at the impact of the bank reorganization and banking reorganization in the ireland and some of the assets that are managed in the u.k.. i will keep the house informed about that. >> i welcome my right honorable

friend's statement today. in particular, the investments to a new facility that the university -- at the university. with the chancellor agree with me that, by putting something into the science budget and coming to this house today and presenting figures of growth and stability for the u.k. economy, this is setting out a clear message to the rest of the world that the u.k. and east midlands is an excellent place to invest? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend, who was a powerful champion of the east midlands and her constituency in a few months that chia's been here. she welcomes -- that she has been here. she welcomed this announcement. of course, the support for job creation in the east midlands and across the country would not be there if we have a fundamentally unstable economy like the kind that we inherited

in may. >> what steps are being taken to maintain low interest rates? >> the bank of england's monetary policy committee sets the interest rates. it is independent in doing so. the purpose, in part, of the measures we are taking to reduce the deficit has been to give the monastery policy committee the maximum flexibility and freedom -- monetary policy committee the maximum flexibility and freedom to stimulate the mind -- stimulate the demand in the economy. that has enabled them to keep interest rates low, which has been a help to the economy. >> turning to the corporation tax reform -- can the chancellor confirmed that it will make the u.k. more attractive as a

holding company jurisdiction and help make us a preeminent headquartered as much as the financial center? >> i think they will help to do that. my friend is right. they will help the u.k. be an attractive place to international companies to create jobs in. also, that changes to the patent regime will help a number of sectors, for example, pharmaceuticals. pfizer is a big public area.

these are members of the public sector, many of whom will be laid off. what additional help in the chancellor give to the constituencies that i've got large number of public sector workers? >> well of course, first of all, we are seeking to reduce the impacts of fiscal consolidation which would affect either party in office. and we're doing it in a way that would be, for example, the lpr shows today has a reduced impact on public sector headcount loss. a second, we are putting in place a really comprehensive program -- work program, to help people without work find work. and third, the forecast is for over a million new jobs to be created over that. of this parliament do not hope all constituencies. >> order. >> in a few moments, a form on the legality of the tar program, auto bailouts and presidential

powers during the financial crisis a

>> the stanford university law school recently hosted discussion of executive power, focusing on the tire program and the auto industry bailout. this panel questioned the legality of the bush and a bonus administration's efforts to curb the financial crisis. this is two hours.

>> the framers of the united states constitution put their names to that document intended to the people for ratification. what brought them together? most americans seem to have forgotten that the single most urgent impetus to constitutional reforms was the need to deal with the financial crisis. ..

as alexander hamilton put it we have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. we have neither troops nor treasury nor government. the constitution that came out of philadelphia in 1787 provided all the tools and new national government needed to address this financial crisis, effectual sources of tax revenue, national control over the currency, national control over foreign and interstate trade, a credible commitment to paying the debt, the rudiments of a modern and group c. system and by implication or so hamilton, washington and john marshall thought the authority to create a central blank on the model of the bank of england. the creation of the central bank precipitated the first constitutional debate of the new republic. disagreement over the banks sparked the formation of the two great political parties of the nation. much of the constitutional theory of the early republic,

the extent of national powers, the role of the executive to the treasure come the meaning of the necessary and proper clause were articulated in the course and since that time, financial crisis along with war has continued to challenge in shape american constitutionalism. the great depression of the 1930s tested whether the constitution was adequate in the needs of a modern economy. many of fdr's advisers thought not. in the governmental response to the depression, the new deal, about the most far-reaching other than those impelled by the civil war. the new deal change the way we think about national authority, federalism, executive power, the regulatory state, economic rights, redistribution and much much more. the great stagflation of the 1970s which brought about inflation at a rate of 13.5% and

unemployment as high as 9.7% in spidered a similar if less far-reaching set of changes in and constitutional thinking about the president's authority over the regulatory bureaucracies, the boundary of state and federal power, proper methods of constitutional interpretation in the role of the government in economic affairs. but now we find ourselves in the midst of a financial, fiscal and economic meltdown of similarly catastrophic dimension which again test the ability of our constitutional structure to deal with the crisis or perhaps our her ability to perform to that structure even at a time of crisis. in the last two years we have seen government action that would have astonished previous generations. the federal government purchase control of general motors and chrysler, two of the nation's iconic manufacturing companies even after congress voted down a proposal to do just that and it

purchased aig the largest insurance carrier without congressional input at all. it intervened in previously sacrosanct and crips he proceedings. it shifted hundreds of billions of dollars in bad investments from private shoulders to the taxpayer. it negotiated deals to save one private investment firm using $29 billion of taxpayer money and then left the next such firm to the tender mercies of bankruptcy. never before has so much power been wielded by officials outside the art mary constitutional chain of command. federal officials with no senatorial approval, nicknamed stars, have set compensation levels for executives in private companies, restructure the automobile industry, distributed what amounted to tort damages for the bp oil spill and organized the new regulatory agency within the federal reserve with extraordinary

control over the allocation of private capital. the financial crisis has rekindled debate over the role in governance of the central bank, uniting such figures as ron paul, the libertarian firebrand from texas and bernie sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist from vermont in an effort to reassert democratic control over the independent federal reserve. almost every day a new change is upon us lasting implications for the way we govern ourselves as a nation and a world. the constitutional law center of stanford law school has convened this conference to generate discussion, analysis and reflection on these issues. the speakers include many of the most eminent legal scholars, economists and historians in america. i am fascinated hear what they are going to say. they will be reflecting on some of the same questions that our founders thought about in philadelphia in 1787. how can we create and maintain

structures of government, powerful and flexible enough to deal with the vicissitudes of crisis but accountable enough and controlled enough to be consistent with principles of republican government? it is our constitutional structure put to the task. how will the responses to this financial crisis change our system of government? what are the implications for executive power, the constitutional bankruptcy system, central banking, government involvement in the economy and regulatory governance? it is a privilege to be able to discuss these issues even as the events which inspired them continue to unfold and a pleasure for me to welcome all of you to this conference entitled, the constitution and the financial crisis. welcome. [applause]

>> good afternoon. my name is carlos bea and i am a judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals. i'm very happy to be here to introduce the panelists on our first panel. the panelists in alphabetical order, i will leave it to you to determine from left to right, r. david barron, who is a professor at harvard law school. he recently returned to harvard

from serving in the obama administration where he was acting assistant general from 2009 to 2010. he often writes about federalism, the place of cities and constitutional law and the executive branch. in 2008 professor barron and are besser marty lederman were an influential pair of articles in the harvard law a review on the commander in chief. professor baron also served in the executive branch before going into the academy as an attorney adviser in the office of legal counsel and the department of justice and he was also a law clerk to my colleague, stephen reinhardt. next to him is mariano-florentino cuellar. professor of cuellar is a professor at stanford and faculty scholar at stanford law school. he too has recently returned

from the academy from the executive branch in 2009 to 2010 he served as special assistant to the president for justice and regulatory policy. this summer president obama pointed him to the council of the administrative conference of the united states. professor cuellar writes about administrative agencies and national security and he recently published an article in the university of chicago law review on the world war ii era history of the federal security agency. professor cuellar sauce on the executive committee of the stanford center or international security and cooperation. next professor cuellar is jillion metzger who is a professor at columbia law school. she writes about administrative law and federalism and the wave ministry to plot intersects with

federalism concerns and constitutional law. her most recent article is federalism and federal agency reform which is forthcoming in the columbia law review. before joining the columbia faculty, professor metzger was a staff attorney at the brennan center for justice at new york university law school. is the massive professor of law and cromwell professor of law at the university of virginia law school. he writes about constitutional law and especially the original understanding of the executive branch. he has written extensively on the powers of the president during wartime including articles in the texas law review called the separation and overlap of war and military powers. before joining the faculty professor park auch was an associate professor at

university school of law in a professor at the university of san diego school of law. he also serves as associate general counsel for the office of management and budget in 2000 he is also the author of an article in the gail law journal entitled, how to remove a federal judge. [laughter] what we are going to do today is i am going to, before the panel came i sent them a following question which i think will sort of center their discussion and each of them will speak in turn and make an opening statement and then i will throw the floor open so each can ask questions and perhaps take a few questions from the public also. the question i send our distinguished panelists is this.

under both the bush and the bomb administrations, the executive ranch acted aggressively in its attempts to address the financial crisis. do you think either administration reached or came close to breaching the executive branch's constitutional authority? as a matter of law and policy, should the executive branch have increased power airing a financial crisis, or should the president add within the strict boundaries of powers delegated to them by congress? finally, will the exercise of executive authority in in the recent financial crisis successful? with that question before them, i now turn to professor barron.

speak we will do it this way and it can be more of a conversation. so i just wanted thank professor mcconnell for inviting me to this end for thinking to have the hunger-- conference. as his opening remarks indicate, the question of the role of financial crises in constitutional law when you think about it is obvious but it is also i think very much understudied. partly what i want to do in my opening remarks is a way of dodging mr. bea's question and put it in the area we are much more familiar with in the national security crisis. the basic question is, should we think of the economic crisis and the way the government responded to it in constitutional terms roughly in the way we think the government response to national security and national security is irrelevant to the question. this has been a subject of some

debate. i know professor poser i think is written on exactly this topic and there is at least two reasons why it might matter to resolve this point. let one is that if in fact we see differences in the way we are operating in the two spheres, but those differences don't actually seem necessary as a legal or constitutional matter there is the least a question as to why we shouldn't have both. in other words we are seeing things happening in the way they respond to economic crises that are different in the way they are happening with respect to national security crisis, it might suggest he could make her national security more like the economic one. if that is not the case though, then if instead the legal rules are driving it, the constitutional structure and the authorities it has been given

actually are leading to the distinct responses, then we have the different type of question which is due any to change change the legal rules in some dramatic way? so it is a threshold question of the said law that is driving the difference in the responses or do some other thing that is internal to the nature of the crisis? there is there is a separate each of which is as the government differently, just as a factual matter. when we see the government acting, good acting in any way that is meaningfully different and if so how? judge bea question to us might suggest no. so the take-away would be the government acts aggressively whenever there's a crisis in a matter what and even if we think the rule structures are different the rule structures are not that different because the government's basic mode is aggression and it finds a way to be aggressive no matter what the rules are to be the second possibility. so i don't don't have answered these questions but i have a few

observations some of which have come from my own recent experience as a lawyer and a circumstances where these crises were happening in the go questions were coming. i will say my own self experience of it to chime in the midst of processing as to what to make of it in the matter is that it is a quite different feel in the two circumstances and some of that is almost mundane facts about how the government is working, but some of that has to do with the particular authorities that are in place so i will say just a little bit about each. in their brownlett just the mundane facts, a very striking difference between how law gets made in one setting versus the others virtually everything is classified in the national security context and virtually nothing is classified in response the economic crisis. at first glance you might not think that matter tremendously as to the shaping of law but as a process mattered has a huge impact on the ability of people

to communicate with each other. to openness within the government and the sharing of ideas and the like is a very different thing when you are dealing with legislator were. you don't have to be in a classified room. you can take work home with you. you can be discussing it and thinking about it in a way that in a classified setting has its own effect on how the question is resolved. is quite striking thing when you are in the government dealing with these questions to see the difference in those two circumstances. at the second thing which points to a somewhat different direction is there is a much greater degree of fragmentation in the legal decision-maker's in the economic sphere where governments organized in a national security sphere. and really happened up have independent agencies dealing with the national security crisis of any significance. all the relevant actors are in the room with the relevant legal decision-makers to make the decision. in the economic sphere the treasury department would be

bound to follow opinions on the legal counsel or the attorney general at the tradition has been that independent agencies aren't so bound unless they agree and in fact it is not the usual case the department of justice would even be a bias in the independent agencies as the source of their legal authorities. so that means there's a lot of separate potential legal decision-makers are operating simultaneously and responding to the crisis in a way that's not necessarily going to be coordinated to the extent legal response to national security crisis would be which is a fairly significant difference just operationally. the mundane experience of the thing to other factors that seem of significance to me, the last to a .2 is the first is legal authorities that are in play. in a national security crisis, the possibility of an appeal two cars with no authority is ever-present.

there's a possibility that statutory limitations might themselves be unconstitutional and that is a thing that is considered as entrenching on the president's powers and there's the possibility that if there is a lack of statutory authority the president has supplemental constitutional authority to respond to the emergency. that is not they feel in the context of responding to an economic crisis. it is statutory law all the way down as discussed. there are ways in which there might be constitutional limitation on the president's ability to control this or that actor but short of that there is very little, at least in the modern government now, sense of an independent constitutional source of authority for the president to respond to the crisis or of a sense of a limitation statutorily of something he wanted to do that it could be disregarded on constitutional grounds. and that means everything is in the mode of statutory interpretation. relatedly, the particular statues that are in place at least in the last aspect tend to

be operating statutes. in the most recent national security crisis the basic statutory framework intel with was a whole range of limiting statutes, criminal provisions like the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the torture at them a lot. there was in my experience relatively less about, at least in the early stages. it might be that the dodd amendment that was adopted with respect to economic compensation restrictions could be understood as analogous, limiting statutes that had to be worked through but i say this because i think one has to think about the relative aggression of loitering in a response to it in connection with whether what the government is doing is interpreting what was an authorized extension of her sponsor crisis versus whether it is interpreting and in an aggressive manner which wasn't restrict this power in the midst of a crisis.

those are two different kinds of statues to be dealing with and i think it is important to segregate them out. to last point is the attitude within the executive branch to what the aftermath of the crisis suggest about the kind of powers that will be needed in the future. here i say it is a pretty, to me, significant difference that i don't have ended good explanation for what is driving it but it can be quite interesting. so if you look at the history of national security crisis, it is very rare that the president having found the power not unheard of but rare, having found the power that was used in thought to have been used successfully, that the president would then be eager to give it up. the story of presidential power, national security authorities but in the last crisis on the economic side, the administration at least was supportive of a new framework

going forward, which on its face would not contain the kind of easy authority to do some of the things that it claims were successful in the event of a future crisis, most obviously the auto bail out. so the new regime that is in place on its face does not make that something that can be accomplished in the same way that was accomplished last time. instead there would be a much more fragmented regulatory structure which does not appear any particular actor would have the authority to do what it was done through the president of the secretary of the treasury under the t.a.r.p. regime. so to my mind there is a significant question as to what is it about the economic crisis that went successfully dealt with assuming one thought it was but by the count of the administration they believe it was with the auto bail out and having dealt with the response with the new regime which wouldn't contain the authorities to repeat that action. resid think in the national

security grounded strikes me as highly unlikely that one would have found the grant of authority the executive branch resulting in a the successful response to a national security threat with the conclusion the administration would seek legislation which wouldn't contain the same authority that they adjust exercise successfully. it is a puzzle to me as to what is driving that but it seems to me if potential fruitful line of agreement. >> thank you very much. now we will turn to professor cuellar. >> thank you judge bea and thank you to my colleagues mike mcconnell for organized conference on a very important topic. just to set the stage and give some context i want to say from a left right perspective i'm right here in the middle. i just want to point that out. there's a lot to say about this topic including two things that i think matter a great year but i'm not going to belabor. first became near to a truly catastrophic financial disaster

and at least to me the arguments the effect we could have done fine with more limited intervention or convincing at this point. second, the separate of power slows down decisions. that is partly what it is designed to do which is one reason congress routinely delegates a great deal of power to the executive, the preeminent crisis decision-maker in our system to quote the supreme court from the mistretta case our increasingly complex society congress cannot do its job absinthe and ability to delegate power under broad general direction. rather than belaboring these points or want to focus on making for points that i think are important to the questions judge bea raises. first, some of the episodes and what became a truly epic high-stakes drama to prevent the financial concussion raise constitutional questions but i don't actually think those are the most difficult questions raised. i think the most difficult questions raised are about institutional design and operations. gotchas is a little bit more about that.

the present starts with broad constitutional and sent statutory power. the statutory powers that are implicated in response, the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008, much-maligned. congress authorized the executive to bail out financial institutions. i don't think the fact the company makes cars means it can't be a financial institution or lowe or his failure to grant a bill that would specifically set up a different program to bail out the car companies means the meaning of the esa excludes companies on its face. moreover the executive does not exercise power in a vacuum in congressional and other political responses are part of our system of accountability. some argue that esa itself was unconstitutional because it gave away too much power should the executive. violating the non-delegation of doctrine. i point out these arguments are hard to accept. the existing parameters of the non-delegation doctrine have been with us for seven decades running for classifications like

curtiss wright and mistretta and requiring congress to do more and no do less than establish a principle delineating general policy in the agency that is to apply. secretary here has the authority to purchase securities only if he determines doing so would promote market stability in congress by subnine factors that could be considered in such a decision including eligibility for a broad range of financial institutions protecting retirement security of americans. as well as a champion of the non-delegation doctrine that justice scalia put in the american trucking case which i would consider to be deleting non-delegation case kohl even in sweeping road tour of the schemes we have never demanded sedges provided a determinate criteria for answering questions like how much regulating is too much? a statutory grant of authority under controlled substances act for example allows the a.g. to criminalize possession of decision of drugs when it is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

nor do i think it constitutionally automatic to the degree across as a very explicit and already established line in president that an inferior reporting to the treasury secretary and not subject to senate confirmation for example was in the world of a car czar or as i prefer to call it an autocrat or pay czar. secretary geithner was accountable. we may disagree with this decision but he was accountable and i believe the constitution leaves some latitude in defining these relationships. the second i want to make is the following. there isn't any episode that raises some more concerns from my perspective is secretary paulson's initial draft of the t.a.r.p. legislation. go back in time to late 2008, septemberseptember, and you see a piece of legislation that quite differently from the one congress actually adopted with just a few pages long and the specific authority that the secretary of the treasury would get was literally a couple of lines long. i would argue that version of

the t.a.r.p. legislation comes closer to violating the non-delegation doctrine as well as violating what i will describe is an afghan principle. that sounds like it was growth on a napkin with a fire alarm blaring in the background proceed with caution. section 2 vet bills as the secretary is authorized to take such action as the secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities and the fact. i'm not exactly sure what that means. from a doctrinal perspective though it is still a closed case given the lines we authority crust in the american trucking, benzene and mistretta. moreover a number of us in academia would have predicted congress protected itself and revoke that statute quite aggressively reminding us of lawmakers relevance even without help from some more aggressive urchin of the non-delegation doctrine. somehow in a couple of days the bill went from three pages to about 157 pages. the third i want to make is reviving a more robust version of the non-delegation doctrine has cost as well as perhaps benefits but those costs even

leaving aside that would ignore more than about 70 years of precedent are the following. saying congress has to be drastically more specific then what emerged in emergency economic stabilization act i would argue is akin to making it harder for congress to make a deal. some favor of us non-database 10 doctrine probably for that very reason but they are also downsized that are exacerbated in a crisis. the executive may be back in a corner and forced to rely more on novel and unusual arguments they bigelow and resize the direction of david suggested which is to say to argue that their other authorities beside statutes that may be the executive could conceivably rely on given the security impact of a crisis like this. or the executive in the u.s. government or have switches be cast aside left on the sidelines if the crisis worsens. the last point i want to make is this. to say that something is constitutional is not to say it is prudent or wise.

that is what our politics are for. i do think much of what has occurred make sense but probably not everything does and i leave to folks over the course of the next day and a half to tease this out and really ask hard questions about this. i'm not prepared to defend or what it's worth every detail of the public-private program. the problem -- my process and private companies and i do not favor the taking of such stakes when the situation remotely resembles normal times. i think it raises a ton of difficult institutional and prudential questions. but these are not only constitutional questions. by balloting by a broad interpretation of rot such is the emergency economic stabilization act, a lot more depends on people and institutional details like how accountable as the fed and he was put in a position to administer it? user dilemmas that are also existing in the more conventional national security context and i say conventional

because again i have no doubt the financial meltdown threatened our security in some sense. they illustrate one reason why our discussion of constitutional principles today implicate not just whether the constitution has been violated but the larger question of institutional design that this conference is designed to deal with. thank you. >> thank you and i'm delighted to be here. so, working ashley pretty directly off of that line, when i think about the question of whether or not what we saw the masses by the executive branch broad delegations, the degree to which congress seemed either to be on the sidelines or delegating very broad power and in addition of course the multiple regulators and executive branch officials operating seemingly fairly independent of political

residential controlled, some -- my first thought was when i was faced with the question, did they exceed their constitutional authority? my first response is to state that this is a degree, different in degree and not in kind from much of administrative government which i think is characterized by very broad discretion, multiple executive branch officials acting and that immediately not just because i am someone who studies administrative lot that makes me concerned about the idea of thinking that there are constitutional limits on the ability to set up those structures and to think at any rate, if there were -- i am less sympathetic to the arguments of the original understanding would force more restrictive approach to delegation doctrine for

example but at any rate even if that were tried this point i think the idea of instituting those changes would be too disruptive to ever be justified. i also think that we should be concerned if you think part of the reason why the executive branch is playing the dominant role that it is in a crisis of the kind of financial crisis is that it is, is that it is somewhat inevitable and part of the structure of the executive branch given its rebuild -- ability to respond mark weekly, the president's political accountability and regulatory structures in place, all the reasons why the executive branch seems likely to be the one that will be at the forefront that a, that makes me think the idea the executive branch claims that role is probably not do so at odds with their constitutional structure as a more traditional model might think but in

addition i would think we should be cautious about trying to put that out side of our constitutional model nonsense because that may limit their ability to address catastrophes in the future but in addition because i think we set up a situation which had worst-case to government officials to act in any way they fill necessary and are left in violation of legal constraints and constitutional restrictions which seems to me more threatening. and thinking about it though, and going on to the question of whether or not the executive branch should have more power, whether or not it is the appropriate situation, i am inclined to say yes but with two caveats that i think are very important. one is the one that david baron mentioned in setting up the difference between national security and the financial crisis and i think there there's a great deal of difference between situations in which the executive branch acts under a claim of exclusive authority or

when the executive branch engages in a very aggressive interpretation of delegated authority and of course the troubling case is what about emphasis in which the executive branch engages in statutory authority in ways that one could think congress prohibited the argument of how you interpret the auto bailout but i think those are very different kinds of situations that claim out in out exclusive tory which i find more constitutionally troublesome. this section -- mexican.i was going to declare it as i do think in many ways the key issue and i would think from a constitutional perspective as well as a policy one does turn on issues of institutional design and the question should really be not just the kinds of powers that are delegated that really the more the structures under which the executive ranch what must wield its authority and where i do think prices governance and i think probably both national security and they

they -- national context does differ from governance is in their relative absence of external check in at that point i think the internal structures become much more effort to constrain our efforts to question a policy. is going to become more from within perhaps than from without. one of those internal constraints that is so prominent in a financial context is the presence of the individual regular -- relay for. one of the interesting things to think about particularly when you think about the degree to which in a case where the executive branch of sex or icing what authority we might want the president to play more of a direct overseeing role, or in which we might be quite concerned about the way in which the division of regulators have led to situations of agency capture is that if you focus on it though from the context of crisis zones in the idea that there may not be external checks, those internal divisions

perhaps not ideal from a political accountability in effect a policy point of view actually made the quite important constitutional in terms of serving as constitutional checks or surrogate constitutional checks against aggrandize power and particularly against arbitrary government actions. whether or not an all context you see division among the regulators that really serves or leads the sense of the functioning and the system of checking each other i think is a very separate question but i think the potential is there and can't just be discarded and perhaps make us wary about some efforts to streamline the structure. i think god frank is extremely interesting from this perspective. whether in practice it ends up working out as it looks on paper remains to be seen but i think the efforts to both formalized political presidential oversight and the same time build in more direct accountability and some

protection for independent regulators is a very interesting structure as are other features such as the role incorporating states is playing a role in the regulatory scheme in some way. another internal constraint in i think this one is government governments attention and again probably because of my administrative law that seems to be quite important and i think that is more attention vis-a-vis played to the constitutional role played by internal prostration what you mean by and terse note in summation is not the this edition of power but really more of a method that the regulators use in wielding that power so the rules and guidance and regulations they impose in their own discretion. the protocol procedures they put in place and so forth. now, i think for the most part when you look at current constitutional doctrine and particularly the non-delegation doctrine contests but in many ways more sure about dr. and it

ignores us internal administration. i think it leaves us concerns to the ambit of the ordinary pin straight up laundry is for example questions of delegation as really turning on what congress says i'm not what agencies do. this is very much the case in the wittman case. i think perhaps this is one of the areas that they might want to rethink and push a little as this division between constitutional and non-constitutional law. this kind of internal administration is very important i think in the best of times in terms of ensuring regulator he and consistency, guarding against agency overreaching by particularly in instances of prices for those external checks may not be so robust or active. i think this kind of internal constraint laid in place at a time is going to prove very important. and the laying ahead, and place ahead of time is another point i want to emphasize because in terms of forcing agencies to adopt to think about these procedures and to issue regulations ahead of time, those are all things that i think

congress and the courts can do. the courts in particular i think are unlikely to be in any way significant player. we are not been a financial crisis and that security might be somewhat different but certainly unlikely to stepping into question actions that might lead to financial meltdown but they can play a role haddad time and forcing this kind of self-regulation by agencies and afterwards perhaps penalizing agencies for not doing so. the final question it had was whether or not this is successful and i think that entirely depends on what your criteria of success are. obviously if you go to preventing financial implosion i think a strong case can be made for the measures in macro, whether or not each particular one was required. i do think the efforts were less successful in taking seriously this idea of internally constrained action and they think it also wasn't as successful in leaving an impression of constrain government action and i think

these two are links. i think the seeming at times ad hoc nature of the governments response in fact eviscerated the sense of overall legal constraints guiding the administration. >> thank you judge bea. can you hear me? i thank mike mcconnell and the others associated with the law center for inviting me today. i'm particularly thankful for the chance to come back and i'm also thankful to the chance -- for the chance to learn from the great panel the center is a symbol. i'm going to speak primarily about the founding. the founders created an energetic unitary executive. hamilton famously said the energy and executive is a leading character in the definition of good governance. indeed the executive power is typically associated with the active -- of the government. others talk come of debated

opined and the judge actually do. this prevailing notion of what executive power was at the founding might suggest executives must have lots of power during an emergency because after all you are supposed to during something during an emergency. that is the intuition that people want during an emergency but i think in fact as the founding executives to not have emergency powers. either in wartime or financial crises and i will explain why in a minute. i reach that conclusion by looking at the antecedents of the presidency and the states in the continental congress level and looking at the types of powers they had so if you take a look at the state executives, did state executives have the power to take property? did they have the power to alienate state or party? did they have the power to arrest tory sympathizers? survey of the power to execute tory sympathizers? the answer to all of these questions was no they did not have much power under the constitution other than the state constitution. whenever they did those things

they did so pursuant to statute. statutory authority gave them all of the authorities to let me give you an example. general washington in the continental army commander-in-chief wanted some property. he went to the pennsylvania executive council and said can you give me this property? this was their reply. quote, it may seem strange that we have no legal power to impress a single horse or awaken. lift the emergency be what it will. nor have we any legal power whatever over property. in the state of imbecility, we regret our inability to answer the public expectation with the keenest sensibilities. so there is a general sense that the grant of executive power is typically found in the state constitution did not cover invading private rights, taking private property. does this mean that state executives never did such things? of course they did. they did so pursuant to statute. they ran two types of statute.

some statutes actually granted specific authority like you can take private property. you can arrest tory's appetizers and there were other statues that were much broader in the scope that gave many different authorities to the governor and the statutes were described, or the statutes were talked up as giving dictatorial powers to the governor, because under the statues the governor could take robert he, could alienate state property given to the continental army, could arrest people without trial and could punish them as well. naturally people took this to mean that the legislature had granted powers to the executive. and they didn't have these authorities they could nacht, so here is a quote from one state executive. after the lapse of an emergency love the government lamented that he was quote left to the constitution which may do in peace but my no means adapting to war, i'm quote.

i think this is a lament shared by lots of governors because the state legislations were often time bound. they would last for several weeks or until the end of the next session of legislature or they were often geographic constraint. you can take property but only within 50 miles of the headquarters. we don't think you need to take are pretty far afield from where the army is located. that is is the state example. what about the commander-in-chief of the continental army? at the same answer. washington was cheap and 1775 and congress passed a statute. he is given authority to raise army units on his own authority, to call forth the militia, to displace and appoint officers under the rank of brigadier general, to take any private property with reasonable compensation and finally to arrest and can find those opposed to the revolution as well as those who refuse to take

continental currency. the implication -- and there is a second resolution. after this one expired they only had power around army headquarters sews the implications of these resolutions are that the commander-in-chief authority did not include authority over private civilians. yet military authority but no authority over other people who weren't part of the military. when we return to the federal constitution one can imagine i suppose, you can tell a story that the federal constitution is to create a stronger executive. benders to the state executives work in a state of imbecility like madison called them mere ciphers. you can tell a story that says they decided to give more present -- my power to the present. i think the principle reason is if you look of the constitution contains exact same grant, many big vaccine grants granted to the state executive. you put grant of executive power. theme need to give them more

emergency power you don't use the exact same language. language that before was not red to grant an emergency power. you would say something else. the president has no emergency part of? noknow, he can convene congress on extraordinary occasions. a provision that seems to bring to mind an emergency. if there is a problem where he needs more authority or needs more funds he is supposed to call congress and they are supposed to make the decision, not him. he can also issue these broad general pardons to try to defuse a rebellion. the federalist papers and other folks talk about this authority is very useful to diffuse something like chase rebellion certainly was useful and the whiskey rebellion that washington face. that if you look at the constitution more generally of the emergency powers i would argue other than a the ones i just mentioned are granted to congress. congress has the power of the purse. there is no exception for

emergencies. congress decides the mayor me a navy. there is no deceptions. congress decides when the state militias will be called forth and the presidents only commander-in-chief when they are called forth. there is no suggestion the president has any authority to decide when they we called for themselves. until lincoln, no one read it as ever authorizing, authorizing a president to suspend habeas corpus. in fact there was a treatise the year before lincoln suspended habeas corpus stating very clearly that only the congress could do so and that was consistent with the 75 years before then. then when you had discussions of emergencies that the founding at the federal state it and else that's where you see people referring to congressional powers, taxation, raising the army and the ability to appropriate. so what does that leave us in terms of the constitution? is a wholly inadequate? i think the founders envisioned

three ways of dealing with emergencies. the first was you do something illegal. if you don't have authority do what you need to do and then get absolution from congress. and then perhaps indemnification. if you actually violated someone's individual rights. this was common during the revolutionary war. sometimes governors thought they had the state property and the of legislature would pass and indemnification statute after the back. we tend not to think the government should do something illegal but sometimes if you really think it is an emergency and you don't have statutory or constitutional authority should do something illegal. certainly jefferson talked about that in the context of the louisiana purchase. he thought that it was legal but he thought it was the right thing to do. what is the second thing? you can get ex ante authority. people of the talking about delegations. congress can delegate authority and advance to any particular

crisis. the militia attacks do that and provide when the president can call forth the militia so the congress didn't wait until a crisis was at his doorstep and then pass a statute. they passed a generic statute that dealt with the situation going forward. you can also pass legislation in the teeth of an emergency. that is what the power of convening congress is all about. is a ringing back congress while it is not in session and possibly giving the present these tools. i want to end with a couple more points, but there is an episode, there is a yellow plague in philadelphia and some 4000 people eventually die. and congress is set to reconvene in philadelphia. this is a problem, right because congress might contradict -- at my contract the yellow plague and they might die which is not a good thing, usually. so washington wants to know, can

i convene congress somewhere else? and he gets advice from his cabinet secretary and also gets advice from james madison and gets advice from the speaker of the house. i think he gives advice on some from pennsylvania as well. all of the attention is paid to the president's power to convene congress and most people say he can't convene congress somewhere else. hamilton says he can if he has ehlers is the reason for reconvene in the murley but he says if you don't have a reason, you just don't want them to go to philadelphia and that is not a good and everything. for our purposes the interesting point is no one says hey is an emergency. and you can pretty to -- pretty much doing anything to do to stave off this crisis. i just don't believe he has that legal authority. he comes up with a cube of solution which i'm happy to talk about later but it is not a claim of constitutional authority. i guess i could say you sent the letter to congress and said i'm going to be at this tavern. why do you guys just so out

there? he is not formally convening the telling them which are probably all meet somewhere else. so that is all i wanted to say i think. i am looking forward to your questions. >> well to get you started and trying to pay attention and take notes, as best i could overhear, perhaps a question for each one of you that you can start using as an idea that is being voiced to discuss among yourselves. the first question i would like to ask is to professor barron. you mentioned that the security apparatus and legislation was different from the financial apparatus because the security apparatus rarely gives up any powers aggregated to itself. once the financial credit is now

working out into a serious of independent commissions which will decentralize within the federal government i imagine, the exercise of powers. there has been some recent questions about whether that is really taking place or not and it centers on the lack of nominations and filling up the positions created in a dodd-frank bill for the various agencies. for instance elizabeth warren who has been tapped, not as the director of the consumer protection bureau but to serve in the treasury department as an adviser to the director for the bureau. she will not only -- somebody else to be the director for the bureau or act like mr. cheney did and nominate himself.

do you see that the structure of disburse regulation of the executive is not really happening and perhaps the white house is using czars instead of nominations? >> now i think is the short answer. the terms are a misnomer. they are advisers in the white house by and large. they don't even have power. if they are in the white house they can't because they are not officers. if they were in the department, they could, and there is nothing particularly unusual about a subordinate to a cabinet secretary having some decisional authority, lots of subordinates within departments do, and as long as they are subject to the control of someone above them and the range of their authority

is not too broad, they have an inferior officer model and there is nothing the least bit unusual about it. i do think there is an interesting phenomenon of a number of new entities being established and when that happens there it a chance -- during that transition period. there's a question about how it will be organized and how it will look down the line and could be quite different than it is now. but the larger.they think you raise about the disbursement within this, there is a lot of different and some of them are actual independent agencies. >> you think the new federal oversight board will achieve the status of the fcc as far as independents goes? >> the council. >> the federal oversight stability council. >> yes, so it is just such a

different density and how it is set up to operate. is kind of a competing entity and i think the larger question on that is, with respect to some of the questions gillian and tina were raising, have we created something that is so complicated that it won't be efficacious in time of crisis seems to me as much of a question as to whether will be sufficiently independent to respond to the risk of overweening arbitrary authority. that is a challenge. is very novel form of organization and they think the most novel thing to me about it is it is a relatively complex structure that is relatively diffuse and decentralizing that respect and is consciously established for purposes of responding to an emergency situation. we don't have a whole lot of examples. that make city pretty striking striking. >> does anyone want to chime in

on that? if not i will go to the next question which is to professor cuellar. we are talking about the new delegation doctrine. former deputy, former white house counsel gordon gray has written an article in the press questioning whether the dodd-frank bill violates the non-delegation doctrine in two respects. one, that they -- created by the statute are in themselves very overbroad and vague. i think that they allow action when quote the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration interconnectedness or mix of activities. it could pose a threat to the financial stability of the united states, sort of like if you don't like it in fact. is that too broad a franchise to be given?

and the second question is, is the traditional review, i won't ask you for work. if the judicial review of actions taken under the job -- dodd-frank bill are somewhat different from that which we are used to in the regular review of agency actions when the review was limited to arbitrary and capricious action as opposed to the more standard abuse of discretion standard? >> let me take this. is a great question. let me take this one first. i don't think limiting review is a drastic reduction in the capacity of the court to take a hard look and in fact those words hard look our terms of art in administrative law. i think if you look at the development of administrative law from the 60s to the '90s, one of the biggest most important things that happened

was court courts finding the notion of arbitrary capricious review could actually involve an executive review of how an agency was going to try to implement legislative authority. i view the non-delegation doctrine as if it is to live it mean something and while i jokingly referred to the napkin napkin -- i think there is intellectual complex in saying there has to be an intelligible principle. if you have to that some of the closet has been put on the non-delegation doctrine in cases like wittman versus american trucking and opinions written by people like justice scalia what you could say is there is some importance in seeing the language in its broader context. justice scalia was very clear in wittman versus american trucking that what an agency cannot do is to say we have a bunch of different permissible readings of you know could he a threat to financial stability and we are choosing a n