not dealing with them. monday printing will work yet that is the prescription that we continue to give the patient. if the fed keeps printing after june we will have high your gasoline and food prices and more in balance is on till this in this, and as some point it will and because the dollar will fall apart and what we are now doing makes everything appeared rosy this devastatingly terrible policy for the long run. i did that is a perception out there by a lot of people. you are really sophisticated. let me ask you to respond to that. >> may i interject briefly. paul volcker in this room and none 1980's facing the big fiscal deficit said the fed could have a loose monetary policy if the congress would have a tight fiscal policy meeting spined left and we will have a loose monetary policy.

we are breaking the school bell in the way you said. we are putting that year's zero interest rate on top of a massive stability of fiscal policy so this is simply not the right mix. .. warren buffett called derivatives in the air timebomb waiting to go off and in some ways that occurred, certainly with aig.

so you had a perfect seat red for bubbles to form and void wicked bubbles. we got a housing bubble, a commodity bubble. we got the energy bubble. we went to $100 a barrel. so we didn't just have a housing bubble. we do whole series of bubbles in which we'd really laid the foundation by loose monetary policy, loose fiscal policy, unable to get them at the same time. that's another whammy to the economy. and here we are cleaning up the economic wreckage. >> morgan stanley has a nice report with this very low-interest environment. i'm sure he can send it to you. you should look at that, senator sessions. the point by the way the two of you are making strike me as just

incredibly parallel to the debate we have in the united states between 1907 and 1913 for the kind of federal reserve. it was nelson aldrich was making points to you, senator sessions, worrying about fiscal inflation that would be facilitated. on the other hand there was of the committee and senator brandeis, senator conrad, who said the financial or without assuring the financial sector would be reined in and regulated and controlled. financial stability would eat the ruling of the soul. act as a 100 years later both of those individuals are right. do not i agree with that, senator. i would say beyond that, we are using monetary and fiscal tools which are blunt tools to solve our problems. as we've all talked about, we are just still experiencing the legacy of the financial crisis. as indicated in my testimony, we have not to play the tools we could to clean up the legacy of the financial crisis. if we did, the fed would not

have to run the monetary policy is running. as i also indicated, we would have a better performing economy. we could unwind some of the fiscal fitness that we've used to help the economy in the short run. >> research and income your statement was one of the processing statements of the causes of the crisis. he mentioned that loose monetary policies, fiscal policy for regulatory policy at mistakes on wall street is some of the period if everyone would accept that and try to avoid that in the future, we'd be a step ahead. very good statement. >> senator to me, connected to my colleagues would permit suit to end the second for witnesses. the senator to me has not had a second round. look at him now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be brief. it seems to me if you look at many traditional measures of monetary policy, we are currently embarking on a very

unusual and dangerous course. please correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is prior to the recent huge purchases of treasuries by the fed, the traditional measures were already growing significantly in the one tiered if you prefer to look at the taylor rule, foreign and from which some do and some don't, by that measure interest rate are well below where they ought to be. if you look at commodity prices across a very broad range, precious metals and agriculture, the commodity number we see high rate in some cases record rates. there's not the cumulative evidence here suggests that there's a very significant risk of much higher inflation in the cbo projects less than 2% over the next several years, could each of you just suggest whether you think it likely that inflation in the united states will remain at or below about 2% in the coming years? >> i think it will be above.

i think you're right in describing the problem. all and we inflation and other countries where they are more closer to commodity in their cpi basket so that evidence is there appeared a lead in the point that the fed had in very wrong on that inflation abstinence in the past. so in 2003, four and five, when the chairman was describing the 1% interest rate policy in, the fed drastically under may said what would come out. >> david, can we stop you on that for people who are listening? can you explain what that is? >> pc is the personal consumption expenditures and that just means consumption. in the fed uses the core measure, meaning excluding food and energy. let's measure inflation by core prices. >> they underestimated at the

time -- >> there's a think a huge mistake in the technique the fed is using because when they look at the number today, it's based on what people ought last year and the prices of those old items. because people are very bad oriented, meaning they want to buy the hot items, when you measure inflation based on what people borrowed last year, old model cars. and with a new model cars are going up in price. it would have been very distinctly in 03, 04, 05 and 06 really is after revision, inflation was above the fed's top limit, above the 2% ceiling every quarter from 2003 to 2007 and yet the fed kept saying and promising during that period that inflation was moderated. so it's making senator to me's point that we really shouldn't be so -- so confident of that.

i'm not confident at all that were avoiding inflation now. the fed is very loose. >> were definitely not avoiding inflation. headline inflation, which is inflation may care about is going up and there you will it. the fed takes food and energy prices out of core inflation. other central banks don't do that. the canadians will take up the most volatile items. and it's a very conscious decision based on historical view of what drives inflation over a longer period of time. we'll see whether that turns out to be right. in pushing consumers, david points, people who consume things that are relatively commodity intensive poll people of a larger part of consumption, on food for example, they are going to be hurt by what

happened. >> inflation is set globally bursting commodity and food and energy prices. we have pointed out in other countries. and so, you know, as he pointed out, senator to me is trying to improve expectations. we have a tug-of-war going on. there's a lot of slack in the economy and not keeping inflation in check are going to list not just headline inflation, but in my view core inflation. a little bit in the next year is not a bad thing. what would be a bad thing is if we got a lot of it obviously we'd see not only inflation rise, but we see the interest on federal debt as you pointed out earlier rights vary significantly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would point out we learned in the 70s we have a lot of slack weakness in the economy and still have very high inflation, so it's a real concern of mine. thank you for answering the

question. >> thank you, senator to me. senator sessions. >> well, forgive me if i don't think they are masters of the universe that fully understand the complexities of the market. you'd all be billionaires instead of millionaires. it's hard to predict what's going to happen and i certainly don't think mr. bernanke has had -- i don't think he deserves credit for advising mr. greenspan for long use the money to long. i would ask mr. is her last on the roundtable added this. since he made reference to mr. volker, in the late 90s and 80s, paul volker crunched inflation spyplane high interest rates for several years. now we are seeing the same process just in reverse. just look at it several years, just as it took several years for the market to see the volker's policy would lead to declines in inflation and interest rate cut would take

years for the market to realize the fed's current policies are highly inflationary. any comments on not? >> i agree with that concern and i think the fed should stop buying bonds. and it's a high priority for both this standpoint and a monetary policy standpoint that they do that. as far as the risk for us of higher inflation, one problem that we run into is whenever the problems distance, then people will focus on it. so if i say when do we think we'll go over 5% inflation? probably not for one or two years. and so, that doesn't give you the urgency. but we don't know what's going happen next month or next year, but we do know we are too close to the brink on the tipping point. so if you can, please start

spinning. try to find procedures that give us confidence about the tenure outlook on spending as well. >> i just reiterate, senator, the point made earlier. number one if we adopted the policy to fix our economic albums and housing and other problems, the fed would not be running the policy is running today. i agree with david that inflation is a process that works gradually. and that gives us a little bit of leeway in terms of where it's going to go. but of course because it has a lot of inertia to it, once he gets going, we need to be careful and the market reaction to higher inflation will not be kind to the federal budget. >> senator, you think the federal reserve act says that the mission of the board in this instance is to aim for price stability. there's no mention about financial stability. none of the discussion are both coming before us in terms of the financial dynamics and how things went wrong and the cycle, none of that is seen as a

property. as a result, they feel the need to do this policy that makes you uncomfortable in your right to feel uncomfortable. it's a very bad place to be. it would be better for yet more fiscal space coming out of the last room. you could still argue whether you want to do the tax cuts or spending increase, but judith moore's days within which to act the financial crisis without pushing up against the limit for david that limits. but that's not how we ran things in the boom in as a result we had over 90% unemployment in the fed's job is to get that down and is a huge mary process if i may use the super bowl metaphor. >> thank you. thank you all. we appreciate your contributions to this committee and i think this has been an excellent hearing. i want to thank senator sessions for his contributions as well. we stand adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] found not >> there is no other way

forward. in this crisis we simply have to learn to work together. as california's first, members of a political party second. >> today, step-by-step, we are putting ourselves on it better, worse annable pat in pushing ahead on the road to growth. >> find and watch this year stated that it addresses as well as the macros from the nation's governors on line at the c-span video library. a search, watch, clip and share with every program since 1987. >> at this event today, white house counsel, robert bauer called the number of current judicial vacancies and emergency situation. he took part in this discussion of the judicial appointment process hosted by the american constitution society good for the national press club in washington, this is an hour and a half. >> for those of you not familiar with acs, where a network of lawyers, judges, policymakers, law professors and law students that promotes vitality of our

comp effusions and its fundamental values. individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law. acs has worked to draw attention to the federal judicial vacancy crisis. the senate confirmed only 62 of president barack obama's judicial nominees in the past two years compared to 100 for george w. bush and 128 for bill clinton during the first two years of their president these. we had 875 federal judgeships and we now have 101 vacancies. that's an extraordinarily high number. 49 of those vacancies are described as judicial emergencies. most recently, the tragic death of judge john roll brought

attention to this curse is. he was at the safeway in tucson to talk with gabby gifford about this very issue, about judicial vacancies in arizona and his death has resulted in arizona now been added to the list of emergencies. this vacancy crisis is obviously not a partisan issue. it's an issue about the integrity of our court and the administration of justice for the american people. on the heels of just as anthony kennedy, calling attention to this problem, a group of circuit judges led by chief judge alec kaczynski, a reagan appointee wrote to senators reid and mcconnell, urging them strongly to fill the vacant in chief justice robert highlighted this crisis in his year-end state of the judiciary report.

so what can be done about this? while today we are extremely likely to be able to hear from someone who is so well-suited to answer that question. white house counsel, bob hour will share his views on the nominations process and what he sees as the likely developments in the coming year. bob was named white house counsel in november of 29. he was formerly a partner at perkins truly and chair of its political group. bob was president obama's personal attorney and general counsel of the obama for america campaign. he also served as general counsel to the sea, cocounsel at the new hampshire state senate in the trial of chief justice david rocker. he was general counsel to bill bradley for president and he was also counsel to the democratic leader in the trial of president william jefferson clinton. bob has graciously agreed to take a few minutes of questions

at the conclusion of his remarks and we will then hear from an extremely distinguished panel. so now it is my pleasure to turn this over to bob bauer. thank you, bob. [applause] >> thank you. good to see you. thank you for your invitation to speak here today on the obama administration and judicial nominations in 2011. i've been fortunate for you to make of this topic what i would. my host highly did not specify to take any approach the topic, so this is what i propose to do. i would like to lay out that i' hoped we could accomplish this year in cooperation with the senate against the history of thee can ac last two years withl nomination. what i will not do as rehearsedl

the familiar listing of complaints about the nominations and confirmations process.matio. there is plenty of commentary on the subject, some of which is learned and useful in some party of which is now a true exchange of accusations about who had sacu behaving badly for my favorite, the chart that someone behaved badly first, thismeone apparently been enough to lessen the culpability of the person tn behave badly second. of th the fax speak for themselves. f rhetorical embroidery. here are the essential facts. as those of you who like to participate in sports debates say, you can look it up. the he conservation rate is peril yus low. one result is the large number of seats designated as judicial emergencies. more than one half pending in the senate are judicial emergencies. the state of emergency being that by which the standards of

the judicial conference involves courts where the cases filed exceed the capacity to hear them. the vacancy rate overall is hovering around a historic 12%. this is twice the more or less structural rate, twice the 5% rate that we might expect in the normal course of resignations, retirements, deaths. yes, we have nominees who have waited for historically long periods of time for a vote. there are a total of 49 nominees before the senate nominated in the last conk and now renominated or nominated for the first time last week. the chief justice of the united states has taken appropriately note correctly stating that the underlying problem has persisted for approximate many years, and that the the need to address it has become in his words urgent. this chief is the second to take up the call against the breakdown in the nominations and confirmations process.

chief justi chief justice rehnquist did the same for some years before. for him the consequence was a grow, unattended judicial workload and the threat it presented of an erosion in the quality of justice. over time these concerns have also been registered by a range of task forces and special commissions like the miller commission in 1996 which opened its report by stating, quote, the federal judicial system continues to be plagued by a troubling unfilled vacancies and delayed in the appointment process and backlogs of pending appointments. now, the effect of this judicial emergency, the state of judicial emergency is predictable and it is per niche yus. it is a massive backlog of cases causing delays for americans seeking their day in court around the country. trials are delayed for months. some courts lacking the necessary capacity have had to outsource portions of their caseload to other courts.

individual judges on courts with numerous vacancies have had to take on hundreds and sometimes more than a thousand additional filings. what is moegs striking and disturbing about the state of affairs is the general absence in the fill sphere of the same sense of urgency expressed by the chief justices. there are exceptions to be sure. senator leahy has spoken forcefully and eloquently to this problem and his concerns are shared by the democratic leadership, but i have noticed in recent months that this concern is spreading and it's by no means limited to one side of the aisle. republicans as well as democrats increasingly acknowledge, some privately and some publicly, we're witnessing something frofoundly troubling. it is true as many pointed out that there are institutional and structural explanations for the woefully inadequate pace for

confirmations. the for example the the senate rules for all practical purposes permit a single senator to freeze the process for a particular nominee and a particular nomination. we're all familiar with the laments about the procedural tools available to accomplish delay or the means by which delay becomes the functional equivalent of fatal opposition. these were all important points in a discussion of the confirmation process. they are significant largely as expressions of the problem, not as a primary source. the problem as i see it is it's more subtle and profound. it's the very climate now enveloping the confirmation process, a climate many years in the making in which it is widely accept that had this is the way things go and that the cost cited by the chiefs, heavy coasts are somehow bearable. now, distinguish this climate from the charged one of highly contested individual nominations. in the latter we see proponents

and opponents claiming large consequences follow from confirming or rejecting particular nominations. this type of convict is far from the subdued setting of the confirmation struggles of today. if it is a war, and that's a troep i don't much care for, it's a cold and not a hot war. there are two examples of today's broader climate and how it manifests itself that may be useful. first, nominees left to languish on the floor for as much as hundreds of days without a vote are basically ignored, not put to one side because of perceived deficiencies in their records or shortcoming as potential juryists. it's a quite blow to the process but a heavy blow nonletheless. no shouting on the floor but nothing on the floor. it is as if it did not matter all to some. of course, it matters a great deal to the nominees, to the

courts to which they were nominated to serve, and to the parties before those courts. chief justice rehnquist quite rightly pointed to the grave loss in the quality of justice when we don't have enough judges for the cases to be decided. it's a loss in the quality of justice when this very proposition, the proposition that we urgely need judges to have a attentive audience. that's one problem. let me cite another. in our selection of potential nominees and in consultation with senators and in some cases representatives, we have been forced to give up on qualified candidates in part because the opposition has expressed a concern about quality or qualifications. in my experience, these concerns however strongly expressed, are all too often hard to really pin down. sometimes it's just a question of personal preference.

the president has selected a candidate for nomination, and a particular member would have chosen differently. this stalls progress on filling the vacancy. if it stalls, well, it stalls because it seems somehow the delay does not matter as it should. this is a new world. a confirmation process once characterized by hard-fought battles wage pd around specific nominees is disabled by steady resistance to moving nominees as cl class across the board. this can happen and only continue if its effects are seen somehow not to matter very much or not to matter enough. and yes, each party can always suspect the other of partisanship, of simply cutting back on one party's number of successful nominations where there's no great divide in one case over competence and ideology. this is the point, is it not,

that if this is acceptable even in the absence of major disagreements about competence and ideology, it is okay to keep the courts short of the judges needed to administer justice, this goes to show how the costs have become bearable and how the loss in the quality of justice somehow has come to be seen not to matter. one question raised from time to time is whether this administration can do more to elevate the issue. to call more attention from this grave problem from varying directions and in varying ways. be assured we have made and we will continue to make this case as the president did forcefully in his letter to congress last october. there he highlighted what he called the dramatic shift in the confirmation process. a change he noted that could produce and i, quote, a crisis in the judiciary. he wrote, quote, if there is a genuine concern about the qualifications about judicial nominees, this is a debate i

welcome. but the consistent refusal to move promptly to have that debate or to confirm those nominees with broad, by partisan support does a disservice to the traditions of this body, the senate, and the american people it serveserves, unquote. in this new congress we will continue to make this case for tweeting the judges as the urgent priority it is. we will make this case from today through the end of the session and into the next. our goal is to do so in a way that simply, sharply defines the issue and seeks to raise the sense of urgency and calls on the good faith and shared commitment to the system of justice that can be found among democrats and republicans alike. for our part in the administration, we continue to devote our energies to removing obstacles and excuses for delay. we have obviously appreciated the process by which nominations are made presenting challenges of its own.

as a citation to the miller center report some years ago reflects, this is nothing new. there are delays in the nominating process, but we're not sang wish about it. identification of the candidate, consultation with the kongs, coordination with the american board association and the ever exacting vetting process consume more time than they should. we have made adjustments. we will make more. but the number of nominations in the last year has been steady. 71 in 2010, an increase of 73% over the 2009 number for a total of 112 overall. as i noted some 49 are now before the senate. the judiciary committee hearing schedule for all intents and purposes is booked for this purpose until the spring. so it's not for want of nominations that we do not have confirmations. now, i appreciate, of course, that there are occasions when there are major differences over the jurisprudenceal outlook one

nominee or another will bring to his other her post. very often they're absurdly overstated and each side does well to take up a more measured stance in these discussions. i understand that my wish is unlikely to be granted, but i've learned in this job that one hangs tightly to whatever slim thread of hope one can. eventually after full and fair deliberation a president's nominees must receive a vote. it goes to the heart of the advice and consent process. to the president as constitutional authority to to nominate and to give or withhold consent. stepping back and the finger pointing, originalists and living constitutionalists and all those in between should find common ground in upholding a process, a constitutional process that moves from nomination to debate to a vote. in this respect returning to the

theme that we should treat nominations and confirmations as if they really matter, one way certainly is to respect constitutional form. the case in which a vote is denied should be rare, truly exceptional in character and serious rather than casual discussion should be devoted for the question of what such a rare case might be. of course, some senators may fear that committing to an eventual vote will give the game away. removing any serious incentive on the part of the administration to heed concerns and consult about particular nominees. fair enough. that's essentially a question about good faith. this administration is committed and i believe has shown that it will consult with the senate in good faith. we have endeavored to do this. we have agreed to review a second time, occasionally a third time the issues raised about a particular nominee. if in the end the objection is simply a senator would prefer a different nominee or would

insist on one that would have decided past cases differently, then the objection should be put to a vote. against the background, which is what the administration is hopes to accomplish and believes it can accomplish in the year ahead in close collaboration with congressional leadership. we will work with democrats and republicans alike to reexpect seriously where we stand on individual nominations and on the process generallily. this has to be a bipartisan process and i'm convinced through conversations with republicans and democrats that there was a growing recognition how we got to this point we cannot remain here. i've heard the same from sitting judges, a group from the republican and democratic administrations of the past, and they come in bipartisan groups confidentially to express deep concern that the pass at which we have arrived is simply not

sustainable. the principles on which i hope we could reach agreement are as follows. judicial nominations are an undertaking in public administration, the administration of justice, and this is a first principle to which we always have to repair. the current slow crawl cannot be reconciled with acceptable standards for maintaining or system of justice in good order. the administration will continue to consult closely with senators in full recognition of their legitimate interests and concerns and prerogatives while expecting that differences about particular nominations can be explored on a common understanding about what constitutes a legitimate, reasonable ground of difference. and last, where legitimate differences remain, and this will affect a small number of nominations, but those differences will remain, the nominee should have a vote anyway. none of these principles should be beyond the reach of good

faith agreement and implementation. and at a time when the american public is asking with particular intensity that the parties work together to solve problems, this problem, the problem of our damaged damaged nominations and confirmations process, should not be left out of the bipartisan work to be done because to refuse or neglect this work would be to affirm again that somehow, in some way, it does not matter. and certainly there should be agreement, and i think there is agreement, that that cannot be true. the process so vital to the administration does matter very much. as the president stated last year, and i quote, the real harm falls on the american people who turn to the courts for justice. all americans depend on having well qualified men and women on the bench to resolve important legal matters from working mothers seeking timely compensation for their employment discrimination claims to communities hoping for swift

punishment for perpetrators of crimes to small businesses seeking protection from unfair and anti-competitive practices, unquote. and we could obviously multiply many times over the lists of the kinds of cases americans are trying to bring to their courts that because of this state of affairs cannot be heard in a timely fashion. so in 2011 the task is to have the performance of the judicial c confirmation process at long last rise to the level of its importance. now to your questions. yes? >> u.s. attorney positions have faced some similar difficulties. in particular in texas no u.s. attorney positions have been nominated. can you discuss briefly the time line for nominations in these positions and what the state of

u.s. attorney nominations is across the country? >> well, obviously the subject of judicial nominations is a subset of a larger discussion about nominations, executive nominations and the speed of which the nominations are made and the speed at which eve eventually they're confirmed and there is no question that we have experienced across the country in particular cases some real difficulties in moving nominations. some of the problems i think that have been at work in those difficulties i've alluded to in these comments. there is a robust process of congressional consultation. obviously congressional interest in law enforcement and nominees of two law enforcement positions is very intense. and there are often very sharp disagreements that break out about precisely how those positions should be filled, the qualifications of candidates to fill them and that is even after the point which we find willing candidates who submit to and

ultimately emerge from the process by which we review the campaigns and vet them. the effort we are making and will continue to make to move judicial nominations will translate, also, and carry over into nominations to other positions including the positions that you cited. we will, maybe so i move from a level of scratch to something more specific. i won't mention a particular nominee but an aspect of the process. we will do what it takes to try to break through gridlock over some of these nominations. to give you sort of an idea, we have gone multiple times back to the congress, sometimes just to the senate side. sometimes the whole delegations that have a stake in the matter, to revisit in person issues that have been raised about potential nominees. it might be a conflict about who should be nominated. it might be a conflict about a proposed nomination, it might be a vetting issue. what i want to stress is we're

in constant contact on these issues and sometimes they prove very, very difficult to address. that's not true across the country. it's true in some cases because of some particular conditions, some particular circumstances. but we spend a great deal of time trying to work through that. i want to recognize my deputy for nomination, susan davies is here and would attest we devote a great deal of time not just on the phone but in person and in a variety of ways trying to work through these issues to a resolution. in a large number of cases we're successful. in the case not so far successful but we will continue to work at it. yes? >> joanne anderson of congressional quarterly. two questions, if i could. i wonder what -- does the

renomination of some of the most controversial nominees says about your thoughts on the process of actually getting through the senate this goaround and an unrelated topic, if you could, any reaction on yesterday's court ruling on the health care law? >> very sneaky. nice little stalking horse question about judicial nominations and right behind it comes health care. on the -- the president does not nominate nor in any case has he renominated any individual the administration did not expect to fully support and to if fully bring to a successful confirmation vote. that's through the individual case you cite and in the case of all the other renominated judicial prospects from last year. we're fully committed to them all. we will work the process very, very hard and we'll speak to individual members where there are concerns and we will move, as i suggested earlier in my comments, very hard to assure

the earliest possible vote with every expectation that we can successfully place all of these individuals on the court. and what was your second question? what was your question, actually? do i have any reaction to the health care vote? i would have decided it differently. this is one decision. there have been a number of decisions we've won so far, the administration's position has been sustained in a number. in this case the administration's position is not sustained. this is part after process and e eventually we'll have a resolution of these issues. i don't think that yesterday's development other than adding another voice to the, if you will, opposition to the goal, to the constitutional objections to the bill, alters the current course toward resolution. the resolution i expect to be successful. yes?

>> are the problems you have talked about, problems about nominations in general, or is there something particularly disfunctional about judicial and law enforcement nominations? is there a reason why? >> well, there are obvious ly different categories of nominations that are going to attract different levels of interest in which congress is going to have different perceived equities. obviously congressional equities and nominations are extremely significant and judicial nominations by virtue of the lifetime tenure feature and the importance of the case law for those courts is going to raise the stakes considerably. there have obviously been issues in the executive nominations process as well. i think there's some overlap in the character that has affected both processes. i definitely think that by virtue of the lifetime tenure of these federal judges there is -- and the significance, again, of the caseload they decide, there

is a high level, a legitimate high level of congressional concern to participate actively through the advise and consent process. now what we need to do is have that process work more consistent with the constitut n constitutional and original expectation. as i said, we return more to constitutional reform here and expect there will be disagreement, have a full and fair deliberation and eventually a vote. if your question is, is there something about the judicial nominations generally, i think those are some of the features i would identify. yes? >> has there been any discussion about abandoning the blue slip proceed europe the way the republicans did when they were in charge? >> well, i'm obviously not at liberty to disclose conversations we had with the chairman of the judiciary committee. as i mentioned before we are of a mind that we should sort of look beyond those battles and

addressing the process as we find it, look for ways to work through to a successful resolution and that's the course that we're on. and i believe it's completely feasible. as i said earlier, i'm hearing from republican members as well as democrats, republican members have no less of a concern about how this works. and some of them, for all the disagreement that you can expect on these issues, some of them have expressed to me in fairly direct terms that they believe that the system is breaking down and they have offered to help. and i take what they have offered at face value. i believe based on my prior working experience with them that they mean what they offer sincerely and i believe that there is a bipartisan route even under the current process to bring these confirmations to succe successful conclusion, not just of the nominations that are already in the pipeline and as i mentioned that's quite a thick number but the nominations still to come.

yes? >> you mentioned the problem with access to the courts. at what point does it become a constitution constitutional issue perhaps allowing for the military courts to open or some other thing about access? >> i thought i put the point fairly dramatically in my prepared remarks. and now you've reduced me to vanilla and i'm ready to leave. i don't think i need to worry we're at that point or anywhere close to it. frankly, i haven't contemplated that as a remedy and i don't -- i'm not totally worried that you need to be worried about it. yes? >> how useful do you consider the weapon of recess appointments?

>> i don't know that i ever would have denined it in terms of utility. i think sometimes it's defined in terms of necessity where a position isn't filled and it does not appear there is any potential ground for agreement. there's work in the government that needs to be done. now what you can imagine recess appointments are quite an adequate response to the problem of judicial nomination. you're not seeking to make a time limited appointment. you are seeking to actually confirm in the normal course, the judge can conserve for as long as he or she is able. so, again, i view that as a question of necessity not utility. but there are times other nominations contacts are indispensable cannot be done. the question of judicial nomination is a question and in recent years. it's become more a subset of

politics generally than the public administration as it should be. obviously there's going to be a political dimension to these debates but it's a case to be decided. one on which the greatest issues of our day have to bring them to court and have them resolved. competent jurists have to steer. so we have to view this nomination as something we addre address. the same thing being true for executive nominations when it sometimes becomes necessary to bring recess appointments if the position is going to go unfilled and the position of government is not going to be undone. yes? >> i've read most recently about the senate not giving votes to

various unsavory proposals voted out of the house of representatives which raises the possibili possibility. we'll let you have a vote on this if you let us have a vote on nominees. i'd welcome you comments on that from both a practical political sta standpoint and from a principle standpoint. >> i'm sorry. could you restate the question? i want to make sure i understood it. >> apparently the majority leader or senator reid is not going to allow votes on the number of things that the house of representatives is passing out, trying not to mention a particular subject like health care, the -- so there's a prospect obviously of trading, some horse trading. we will let you have a vote on health care. you give us votes on "x" number of judicial nominees. and i'd welcome your reaction to

that in the political question and as a principle question in terms of dealing with judicial nominations. >> i'm going to probably disappoint you by staying with my own responsibility and competence. i would rather not address the various ways in which business of the senate is moved. obje obviously the members made judgments about which measures and which votes and what combination will be scheduled or taken and that is a complicated process that i think is probably best not to comment on. i think at the end of the day my view is, and i don't mean this as any indication of the end justifies the means analysis, we have to simply arrive at an understanding not that we can in any particular circumstance areich at votes on confirmations

that by some route we manage to get there but as an affirmative matter of caring for our judicial system we have to have those votes. we have to have those confirmations. so those votes may develop in other ways and i welcome those votes when they occur. a larger point i want to make is this is a matter of urgency that goes through the very heart of whether we have a functioning system of justice that we can offer the public to this country. >> i guess i'll be that guy to ask the question. what is the administration's next step with guantanamo given the action that congress has taken, have you given up it happening within the next two-year period? >> i think what i'll do, if if i decline to answer two questions in a row and set a question, is allow caroline to schedule to

appear at an event dedicated to that purpose. it's a very complicated question. you've asked a question that would require several minutes of investigation and some background and it's probably more than within the sphere -- within the assigned topic that we can do. thank you very much. bob. those extremely stimulating, interesting and i'm eager to use see what our panelists have to response.ger we are fortunate after bob's we are talk to have three exceptionally well qualified panelists to ll qualo what bob had to say it to give iftheir insights into hw oresident obama has fared this far with judicial nominations but the road ahead looks like.

and what the road ahead looks like. ma kin delrahim is a shareholder, makan was appointed assistant attorney general by president george w. bush in july 2003 and from 2000 to 2003 he was the staff director and chief counsel in the senate judiciary committee working as the principle legal and policy adviser for then chairman orrin hatch. carolyn lamm is a partner the district of columbia. carolyn was president of the aba from 2009 to 2010 as well as a past president of the d.c. bar. she was named one of the 50 most influential women in america by the national law journal and one of washington's top 30 lawyers by washingtonian magazine. bill marshall is william rand

kenan, distinguished professor of law. bill was deputy white house counsel and deputy assistant to the president during the clinton administration and served as solicitor general of the state of ohio. bill has published extensively on the first amendment, federal courts and presidential powers and is a leading expert on judicial selection. and, of course, of great importance to the american constitution society community bill has led with great expertise, camaraderie and guidance to a member of our board. now we will hear first from makan, carolyn and bill. we will have a conversation about what that means for the state of our judiciary? >> we thank you for inviting me

to be here on this -- i think one of the more important topics that we can discuss in a democracy. as were a lot of us that have been watching what's been unfolding in the middle east and egypt and jordan. it remind me i was 10 years old when i left iran and it eerily reminded me of something that was going on back then. not really appreciating it back then. in my experience having lived in the government to work in all three branches of the government. i think that what we have in america as far as the judicial branch, an independent judicial branch, is, in my view, probably the most significant element of a true functioning democracy, people can take their grievances to the courts and be comfortable that they will most likely, regardless of what the outcome is and people will be happy and unhappy half of the time with

the outcome of whatever the grievance is but we respect that whether that is on an issue of health care, whether it's an issue of intellectual property, whether it's an issue on the election of a up states president. we don't go to the streets and riot. we'll hold peaceful demonstrations but generally we respect 5-4 supreme court decisions whether it's on racial issues and that is probably the most calming influence in a democracy. so this topic is important and very personal to me. i was glad to hear bob's comments about not really rehashing past statistics because i think both sides can get into statistical jujitsu if they want to and rehash issues to the '80s who has left more vacancies, who didn't process. the thing i wanted to stress,

though, is that bob said there is this pattern, an alarming, profound change that we're witnessing here, and there are 99 -- i leave these things change on a daily basis. probably 100 vacancies now. 49 nominations for those vacancies. so more than half of those vacancies do not have a nomination associated with them from the white house. president obama's nominations, 60 of them, got confirmed last year. at the end of the year when there were 99, at the end of the first two-year congress, 99 vacancies, 58% of those did not have a nomination associated with them. so i am glad that the white house is finally making

nominations a priority but they had other priorities to which they addressed their attention, health care, financial services reform, energy and other matters as well as the financial crisis that the president has been dealing with so nominations, i don't think folks can say regardless of what i'd side of the aisle you come from, has been a priority for this white house until now. now maybe it will become one. i can tell you one thing, it is not a partisan issue that either the delay or the confirmation of president obama's nominations. a couple of statistics that i will mention, just facts to look up as bob said, is that president obama's circuit court nominees from the time they were nominated until the time they got hearings took them on average 64 days. president bush from the time they were nominated to the time they got a judiciary committee

hearing, 247 days. district court nominees, district court nominees of president obama waited 60 days to get a hearing. district court nominees for president bush got -- had to wait 120 days before they got a hearing. now if you know the senate rules and the process of confirmation, there really is no impediment to the democratic majority to bring a nomination for a vote or hold a hearing. as soon as the white house nominates, there is no impediment to senator leahy holding a hearing for that nomination nor to the senate majority leader. bob said there was a single senator can freeze all nominations. a single senator can withhold giving his unanimous consent which is what's asked. there is nothing to stop senator reid as the majority leader to go to the floor and bring up the

nomination to be considered and debate if if there's a senator who is not willing to give their consent as is their constitutional prerogative, nothing for him to say, no, we're going to debate this and move to it or if he wants to, just like he's done in other areas of legislation, if the nomination is important enough to him, 16 senators to sign, hopefully you can have 16 senators who would support the nomination to sign a cloture petition and file it immediately and move to getting that nomination up tore a vote. this hasn't been an issue given other priorities of the party but republicans have been in no position to block either a hearing or actually taking it to a vote the last two years. so, you know, i am glad that it is becoming a priority and hopefully the consultation and how that process would go. the one thing that does bother me, a couple of nominees who

when the democrats had 59 senators, actually for a period of time they had 60 senators when senator specter switched parties, they couldn't get those nominees up or they didn't think it was important enough to bring those up when they had 59 after senator brown won in massachusetts. they couldn't find a single republican to support one of those nominees to bring it up for cloture and go for a vote. i think when you have only 53 democratic senators, difficult red states it will become a heck of a lot more difficult so why renominate, why not move forward, work with the senators in a partisan manner and send nominee that is could get the support, looking for just a fight. that is a waste of time that is going to be spent on a couple of nominees, 60 votes to bring them

to a final vote. my views on filibustering nominees is public in their last acs event i've taken a different position. i think there should be a change for filibustering. traditional nominees and changing the rules but not that to have been fairly done, you have to have a number of leaders come together and say for the next president, whoever that is, or for the next congress, whoever is going to be in charge of either the senate or the presidency. within the current system if there has been fewer nominations confirmed than the white house would have liked i think it only has two people to blame. the white house and the democratic majority in the senate.

>> you've given us lots to talk about. so i'll turn it over to carolyn for your views. >> well, it's a pleasure to be here and talk with you today and i have some observations i want to share about the real impact of these vacancies on the public and on the lawyers who have to appear in front of judges who are overworked and unable and has profound implications as i think makan and i both agree on with respect to justice, with respect to the ability to have their rights heard and it is simply something that we as americans and we as lawyers cannot tolerate and i want to give you some for instances in terms of the vacancies and i'll

talk a little bit then about the why which makan certainly gave perspective on and some recommendations for what we can do about it and urge both the senate and white house to do their jobs and get our benches full to the place that they should be. first, let's look at when judges -- when we are talking about judicial vacancies it's not detached from reality. they have the judges in those districts where they are not fully staffed, have staggering caseloads. they're estranged beyond comp s capacity to deal with those caseloads and they're unable to keep up with them. and what that translates into the day-to-day world for lawyers who appear before them for litigants who appear before them is they have to delay civil

trial docketsfdockets. if a litigant is in there with a contract dispute, with a constitutional dispute, they're not going to be heard until speedy trial cases are dealt with. that means the criminal cases are dealt with. indeed in arizona after a murder, the district court declared a state of emergency and has, in fact, extended the limits under the speedy trial act so that the accused now has to have a hearing in 180 days for the next 12 months instead of the mandated 70 days. now that's really reprehensible in our system. it cannot be tolerated. they have already in an extremely busy district three vacancies and they are not full and i'm not going to be judgmental about who caused the three and who should be getting

them through, it is urgent that we move people through and get people on the bench and we simply cannot say, well, they should have gotten people together to invoke cloture, not filibustered or whatever. we need to move it. senators have to do their job under the constitution and senators are not doing their job under the constitution. the judges also in these districts adopt efficiency measures and what that does is impact due process. it cuts back in the name of the efficiency because they don't have the time to devote to cases. it cuts back on how much time they're going to give to a litigant to present their case, how long the pleadings will be in front of them, and that really alters the quality of justice. another thing that it results in

is in these overburdened districts we find judges resigning. they don't want to deal with justice in that way. we find judges retiring and we also find excellent attorneys to turn from accepting a nomination. it shrinks the pool. now we heard if we focus on why is this going on, we heard, of course, that with respect to the rate of nominations that the president has been slow. in the first part of the congress, of course, the pace was slow. but when we look at the record, i'm not sure that the record demonstrates that that is the contributing factor. the senate postponed voting on 22 nominees. until the lame duck session.

they never considered 19 pending nominees. these are people reported out of committee, the worst vote out of committee was 12-7 and that was only on a few. most of them come out of the committee with unanimous approvals and then they sit in the senate without action. 13 of those 19 pending at the time of the adjournment in fact came out of the committee without dissent. there was no controversy. no republican senator questioned their qualifications. and 13 of the 19 were on the list of 49 judicial emergency districts. that's truly an abdication of responsibility that can't be tolerated. now i do think the administration should be increasing the number of pending nominations to increase the pressure to be sure.

we do whatever we can to encourage the administration to do it but, that said, they have to move out of committee onto the floor and get a vote. if you look at the rate of confirmations, the senate, in fact, has been using dilatory tactics, blue slips. one senator doesn't return the slip and there's no vote. it just sits. and we find the senate did, in fact, confirm 62 nominees, dozens of nominees never got to the floor for consideration. that had been reported out of the committee without any dissent. two-thirds of the nominees presented to the senate were reported out of the committee without dissent and yet were subjected to delays on the floor. and then those that did get

through generally got through with unanimous vote or almost unanimous vote so there wasn't any great dissengs on the nominees. the remainder are getting through and without any great dissension in terms of who they are and why they should be going through. we do understand as mr. bauer indicated that now there are, in fact, some discussions going on to change the procedures and we applaud that. it must be done. but it must be done yesterday. they really must come to terms in terms of filibuster, in terms of voting on the floor and move the process. to avert any kind of potential crisis and to preserve the

quality of our judiciary, the aba urges and we have urged in letters, we urged in resolutions, we've urged directly that both the senate and the president must make the prompt filling of judicial vacancies a priority. the administration has to make a concerted effort between the time that a vacancy is announced and the time that a nomination is made. and the senate has to give every nominee an up or down vote within a reasonable time after the nomination is reported out of the senate judiciary committee. makan said there were many and the time was short that got a hearing right away. the real time where there's been a problem is between reporting out of committee and getting a vote in the senate. that's the problem, where we're

seeing antics, not necessarily just getting a time in front of the committee. and so i guess in terms of the prognosis for the future, it's very encouraging that both sides of the aisle recognize now, and we've heard from both sides, that the system isn't functioning efficiently or effectively and that they are both considering changes to the process. even though we've heard that filibuster may remain an option. but we applaud their efforts. we certainly applaud the chief justice coming out as strongly as he did in his year end report to focus the attention on these very serious issues and his imploring both benches to perform their constitutional duties. we regret that the senate j judiciary committee on the first batch of nominees that were to come out last thursday were

delayed. and so there still remains work to be done and certainly i think may can makan is exactly right on the point of the impact of this on the people not to be i gnored i what goes on in the streets in cairo and tunisia and you're quite right, i think, that what distinguishes us is our judicial system and people's assurance that they, in fact, have a day in court and can have their grievances heard and the fundamental right to justice is at the core of preserving our democracy and at the core of that is a competent judiciary and we're not going to get there and we're going to have litigants and all kinds of litigants, criminal and civil, tremendously frustrated and not tolerating the kind of delay

and, indeed, denial of justice as a result of a lack of a fully complemented bench, so there can be no higher priority. this must be something that the public and the american legal profession insists be at the top of the agenda and that both the senators and the administration perform what are their constitutional duties. >> i thought it really interesting when bob bauer started off his comments to talk about the good old days under the bill clinton judicial nominees and the good old days on the george w. bush judicial nominees because, as i recall, neither one of those were good old days. the situation has been bad. it's getting worse and unless we turn it around it's going to get worse than it already has been. and i think what we've seen is that every opposing group to

whichever president is in power has escalated the tactics being used to oppose judicial nominees and we've gotten to a point of complete absurdity at this point where delays are taking place even with result to judges when they get a floor vote will go unanimously or close to unanimously. this is a new way of slowing things down. up until the last floor vote and then look bipartisan because at the end of the day you finally make the vote. i'm going to get back to the problem with that in a moment but i want to, again, re-emphasize the harm this is causing. one obviously we talked about is the harm for litigants. the second we talked about chief justice roberts has raised is the harm to the american justice system which is one of the pinnacle parts of our nation's democracy. and the third is the harm to the nominees which we haven't talked about all that much. but if you're a lawyer and

you've been appointed to become a judge, you can't pick cases in the same way that you could before. your life is put on hold. and what this is doing, obviously, is discouraging good people from letting their names being entered into nomination because you can come before -- you can come before the white house, if they reach out to you and suggest would you like to be interested in this job, and they can say, you have nothing uncontroversial in your record and you can look at them and say, does this mean i'm going to go through quickly? and the answer is still no. one of the problems both democrats and republicans have agreed about except when they're not in power, encouraging good nominees to go forward, if they have anything controversial in their record. now you don't have to have anything uncontroversial in your record, major incentive because of the tactics being used to stop even noncontroversial nominees from going through. why is this happening?

what has caused this? and a part of it has been mentioned, the democrats have not put as much emphasis as they should have in the early part of the administration. point taken. why hasn't it occurred and if only harry reid just put the names out there, they would have been confirmed by that according to makan. what a beautiful world. instead, they were putting holds on everybody and threatening filibusters and makan says, what a beautiful world, wait for cloture and get rid of the fill bust and get to unanimous vote except that takes five days. and to take five days for every nominee going for the district court is going to slow the process down. nothing that was a threat, senator mcconnell has taken great pride on his two-year strategy of delaying everything so that the white house couldn't get traction on anything. he has paid no political price

for that in judicial nominees. he's reaped great benefit. this is part of that strategy of slowing everything down making everything a hard lift. so that the administration can't get anything accomplished and i understand the tactics. if you ask most republican senators they will tell you they were effective tactics. the problem, however, besides discouraging good and qualified people from coming forward, the problem is there's very little capital being expended in opposing a judicial nomination particularly when you do so quietly, particularly when the only threat is you are going to have a filibuster being made and at the end of the day you vote and say, that was bipartisan. so there's no real political capital that was expended by those in opposition during this period because people don't

think about judges and the nomination of judges as important as they should for all the reasons we talked about earlier so this was a very low expenditure of capital. i'm sure the republicans, the problem they really missed, the problem we need to focus on here is we're not talking about the democratic administration's capital. we're talking about the capital of the american justice system. and that is the capital that is being squandered by this kind of mindless opposition to delay just for the sake of delaying. i do want to -- i have to end on makan's other point. what a great thing if only, only president obama dropped the six nominees who have had any controversy whatsoever we could go nice and easily. what that means is that we should only the democratic administration should only nominate judges who will get unanimous consent so that if any

republican opposes or two or three republicans opposes then we should pull back from the democratic administration should pull back the administration and, excuse me, pull back their nominations. i'll be interested to see if that's the tactic that's taken by the next republican president. it certainly wasn't the tactic taken by the last. and i'm not sure why it didn't occur now. the real problem as i see it is president obama hasn't put up enough thnominees. when i use the term controversial, i don't mean outside the mainstream. criticism from jim demint is not outside the mainstream. that has to be remembered. even if we want to put aside this constant debate about who

is outside the mainstream and who isn't, let's just go back to the holding up on the noncontroversial nominees for a moment and think about what a game and what a facade has been played to the detriment of the american political system. yes, makan, i will blame harry reid in part for not being aggressive enough on this although he did have some other priorities. i do think that in the early parts of the administration president obama could have been more -- made this a greater priority at that point although clearly he had a major recession and facing a major recession on his mind. but i think i'm going to put senator mcconnell at the top of the list. >> well, this has gotten spicy, which is what we wanted. i'm sure makan will want to respond to a variety of points. i have to confess makan and i were both in the senate during

the battles under george bush and i worked for tom daschle before that. we had other battles when bill was in the white house counsel's office. and so we've all been part of this sort of general give and take, to put it nicely, for quite some period of time. and so i know i take seriously what bob said about not rehashing the litany of complaints, that we could go through our own version of them. again, i don't want to deny makan his opportunity to answer some of the points that have been made but i would like to ask as a general question that i hope you will also address in your conversation with each other, we've all acknowledged that the system is broken. we've all acknowledged that there have been for whoever is to blame, i think "the washington post" called it at the beginning of the bush administration the politics of

tit for tat and so we've had the politics of tit for tat for quite some time and acknowledged there's a significant problem now, high official vacancy rate, emergencies, the impact on the american public. so what should we do? how do we actually lift this logjam? are there solutions, open that to anybody to respond to. start with the hardest question first. >> well, there have to be. we really have to work together. when i left the white house counsel office i felt that some of the slots still open were opened unfairly, that there should have been confirmations on people, one is elena kagan. i wrote letters in support of republican nominees who were up for nomination. i think there has to be some bipartisan work. i think we've seen a number of strong support from republicans

and i think people have to try to make this a little bit more of a bipartisan process than it is and to not carry grudges of the previous administration back forward to the next one. even if we stay at the level of grudge that existed at the end of the bush administration, we've taken this to a new level and we've taken it to a new level that is pulverizing when you start making this kind of delays with respect to people who turn out to be completely noncontroversial. >> i do think, and it's one of the points you made, there has to be a price to be paid for doing this, whether it's the republicans for holding it up or the democrats for not pushing it through. whatever it is, i think there has to be some accountability because it's such a fundamental

and serious issue. and, in part, i think the press needs to get the word out to the states and to the districts that this is what's going on. i think most people don't understand and they don't know the impact that it has. they don't know what kind of brinksmanship is going on in washington that's impacting their daily lives. i also think the state bars who do have some resonance with the senators whether they're republican or democrat because they are all opinion leaders need to speak out very strongly and forcefully in those districts where we find that, in fact, we aren't getting people through and on the bench and that's part of the price to be paid. to let the senators know that, indeed, the lawyers are watching and the public is watching. >> makan, you can get your turn here. >> it's just fascinating.

letting the local press or the state bars and all of that know what? that when asked before a nominee is brought up for unanimous consent, the sthor is saying, no, i'd like to have my 2 cents about in nominee? i didn't sit on the judiciary committee. i'd like to have a real debate about this. and, look, it would take literally 30 hours when dual track legislation. let me equate that to something that you are saying with nominees, with legislation. let's assume that senator reid is holding on to something like health care reform. and he's saying i have this bill which i'm not bringing up to the senate for debate or voting, but i ask unanimous consent that it be passed and if any senator opposes it and does not give unanimous consent, you're saying they should be outed or doing something egregious, no, these are the senate the's rules. they have been unless the rules

are changed. we have to respect that. the fact that a senator, i want to state this clearly, the fact that a senator is not giving unanimous consent does not mean that they're somehow doing something nefarious or obstructing, get the vote. of those 19 nominees who didn't get a vote at the end of the year, 15 of those 19, 15 of those 19 were reported out of the judiciary committee in december. 19 got confirmed in a lame duck. you have to go back to 2002 to actually find lame duck confirmations so i think senator mcconnell should be commended for even allowing that to move forward. those were unanimous and they allowed them to go forward. i think there's legitimate debate on his views. this is a healthy debate from our democracy. these are lifetime appointments

that affect every one of our rights with health care. there is probably 40%, 50% of the country that strongly opposes it and our constitutional rights are decided by these judges. very important positions. so his views on the constitution, his views that are all over the record are very legitimate issues for debate if not a single senator that could have been debated by the white house when they had 59 democratic senators there is something wrong about that nominee. or bring it up and debate it. let's see what that is. that's a healthy debate about that person's views. i appreciate what bill is saying but makan says harry reid brings it up and they go through

unanimous consent. it's not what i'm saying. i'm not saying, also, what you mentioned is that only nominee who is can get through unanimously should be nominated. they should have at least 60 votes under the current rules. not 160. and if you have 59 democratic senator, find one republican, not a consensus between some of the senators who voted for health care or the stimulus and those, you can find at least one senator. if you can't on that particular nominee, then there's an issue or at least debate it. if you believe strongly in it, we wanted to do that, for example, with nominee like estra estrada. he was not allowed -- i mean, this senator, this current president, when he was a senator, voted against, you know, nominees that flew through against bringing up even cloture. was he also part of this? he held very strong views.

he gave some strong speeches on why he's voting to not allow cloture and a debate on elito and roberts. the other thing, just one last thing to mention is, look, this president had during the time two supreme court justices nominated and confirmed. those take a lot of time and resources of the judiciary committee so i don't think, you know, either senator reid or the committee should be blamed. they got through, too, and very possible that this summer will have a vacancy to fill. those are important considerations given the overall numbers of how many get confirmed and how many don't. just because a senator does not give unanimous consent doesn't mean that they're delaying a particularly nominee. >> if i could just follow up on makan's statement and, again, another question for the group, maybe carolyn will react to this.

it does seem you're deflating nominees and that you look under the bush administration and i did promise i wasn't going to bring up the litany of complaints, but the district court nominees were processed fairly quickly and they weren't required to have 60 votes. they were often not even required to have a vote. and so i don't know if that's something bill or carolyn, strikes you as different or is there some different qualification or process we should have in the circuit courts? >> the constitution doesn't distinguish and no one attempts to deny a senator the right to oppose. indeed, that's their prerogative under the constitution. but what we suggest is it must be done in a very limited time. and your five-day limit, that would be great. a ten-day limit.

any kind of a limit. you either oppose and get them out to a vote or not. in a certain amount of time. >> we have a short period of time left. i would like to ask one more question of the panel and then open it up to questions. bob brought up something that i thought was a very interesting point and i wondered if you all could comment on it. he had a list of principles that he laid out in terms of recognizing that the judiciary is an issue of public administration. something that's another branch of the third branch of our government that's important and we can't live with the delays that we have. that there is a close consultation process with

senators including having a conversation about what are legitimate differences. even where there are legitimate differences there should be a vote. and so i guess i go back to the legitimate differences and ask -- bill, you mentioned sort of what is the mainstream. in this idea of maybe is there a way forward from here, is there a process that can in addition to making a shortened time frame a way of actually establishing those boundaries? >> coming up with what's in the mainstream, i think that would be very hard to do. i do think it would be helpful if both sides got together and started talking a little bit more about this so that maybe they can -- i think -- i certainly think if there's a republican president that the republican president ought to get a heck of a lot of deference as to who he will nominate. i don't think that i would expect a republican president to nominate the same kind of people that a democratic president

would and i'm sure nobody on the republican side thinks that president obama should be nominating the kinds of people a republican president would nominate. so everybody recognizes there's a little bit of a move on both sides depending on who is the president but it would be helpful if both sides got together and what it meant on either the right or the left. maybe it's not republican in the house and the senate who are at fault, the democrat congress, the interest groups in this town have too much influence over the process. the groups on both sides demonize those who shouldn't be demonized. maybe if we got a number of

interest groups together to try to work this out, then maybe we could have more responsibility from them. i think that's been needed as well. >> i must say, though, the thought of defining what's not right on the right or the left or whatever and in some kind of nonobjective approach troubles me. when you are talking about lifetime appointments, i mean, none of us on the basis of prior behavior could have predicted precisely how justice o'connor might have decided some cases, how justice sutter might have decided some cases, how justice kennedy decides cases. many times people within themselves make decisions when they're on the bench with a lifetime appointment that one might not have predicted and i would hate to have seen any of them excluded because they fell on the wrong side of the bar. >> i agree wholeheartedly with bill that a lot of outside

interest dwrups really get into character assassination over the nominees and that is part of the problem that gets into why a lot of very qualified part of the p very qualified people have no interested. that along with judicial pay, which i think is something that also should be addressed. by congress at some point. you don't get the best and brightest to go through, to want to be considered. that's an issue. the character assassination, racial overtones on some of the nominees is unnecessary and disruptive to the process. the one thing about what bob mentioned, having that dialogue and consultation, that's an important thing with the senate. somebody mentioned blue slip and arcane issues, one thing we've got to recognize the senate

aren't just herds and numbers in the white house. the senate is its ownentity and every single senator is by themselves. perhaps why some nominees have not been named by this white house, it's between the party itself the senator from home state who wants to be a democrat wants a certain nominee. the white house wants a different nominee. you get into those fights. it happens between republicans and democrats. but the senate is its ownentity. the blue slip functions as a cartel agreement amongst the -- this has nothing to do with partisan ship. it's an agreement that if a home state center does not give a-ok to the white house nominee the judiciary committee does not move forward, which is why both parties honored that every since

senators kennedy and thurmond had put that in place some years ago. but those are issues that is very particular to the senate. it's the prerogative the senate takes for itself. it's not something that is one way or the other partisan. >> we have time for a couple of questions from the audience. i'm sure there are a lot of things people want to ask about. please wait for the micro phone. >> hi, thanks very much. sorry. i have experienced a lot of delays in various courts because of discovery disputes, people get extensions. that's the normal course of events when people are getting all kinds of discovery delays and motions to compel and all kinds of thing intrinsically within a case. i wonder if anybody has done a study with respect to delays

being a function of things internal naturally to a case progress or delays caused by the lack of staff as a first point. and secondly, because a lot of that is remediable by diverting things to magistrates, do we need the same confirmation process with respect to magistrates. is it possible outside the box to get outside arbitration groups, aaa, american arbitration society, jams, all those arbitration groups looped in somehow to be paid somehow by the courts for those civil litigants not in the krinl pacr part who don't want to pay for it themselves. through some of these other groups, is there some way to divert some of those cases so they could see resolution

quicker than a three year out trial date. >> you may be quick tore answer this. >> there is court in mediation. it takes both sides agreeing. and if they don't agree, unless it's in some way mandated by the court, both mediation and arbitration are consensual jurisdiction. there's no way someone can impose it upon them. obviously if it's offered as an option and one person wants to get their dispute resolved and is willing to agree, the other party to drag it out just as they might do with discovery would refuse. there are certain situations where it is mandated attorney fee disputes or something. but other than that, the courts generally don't require it. you know, it is an option. i think both in the report for the additional judges, and i was just looking for the number of the bill, in that report they do

identify, in fact, some of the studies that have been done on the impact of a shortage of authorized judicial positions. and i think the administrative office of u.s. courts, as well if you go on their website and look at how they determine where the judicial emergencies are, there is good statistics on the impact of the delay as a result of not getting the judge to hear the case. the kind of creative approaches the judges have taken, the impact of that on due process or consideration. there are some things, some studies around. i imagine if you check the website as well of the various u.s. courts and council on justice, you'll find quite a bit of statistical research. >> are there thy other questions?

yes? >> let's test out this proposition that we can reach a bipartisan consensus. maybe bill and carol on one side and megan on the other side. bill and caroline and carolyn being an umpire. several of you have mentioned the fact that there used to be more comedy. people used to talk to one another. actually people used to vote with the other sides' nominees or against the other sides' nominees. the difference now is that we have the parties moving frequently in lock step. so as procedural possibility number one, what would you think of having a secret ballot on cloture votes or judicial nomination so people could vote

against their party with no one else knowing. secondly you've all mentioned the fact the problem is these are life appointments, which in the case of some of these young people in their 30s who are getting nominations are going to be on the court for a long time, agree on a practice that the last two years of a president's term he or she only nominate people over 55, and the last year he or she only nominate people over 65, so they are not on the court so long. >> death panels? >> with respect to the first part of your question, i don't think inserting more secrecy into the system is a good idea. there's too much secrecy in the system already. there's too little political

capital being paid, because you can end up with a vote, you vote for the person in the end but have done every dieleterious tactic for it to take place. a lot isn't about the nominees. it's all about stopping the rest of an administration's agenda. sometimes it does. there's no doubt sometimes it does. what we're seeing is less and less for that to be the case. again, let's have a good dialogue on nominees who do turn out to be controversial. but less not delay people noncontroversial for the mere sake of delay. there's too much of that doing on. >> just going to add, i think the word very few cloture votes on traditional nominees. when they were, as carolyn already mentioned, they had sometimes almost unanimous votes

in their favor. in fact, once they were forced to vote people were embarrassed about voting with or against their party, they just weren't really forced to vote. i think we've run out of time. i want to thank our panelist, probably especially megan for providing us with the counter point. please give a hand. [inaudible conversations]

latest guidelines from the government recommend less salt, more fruits and vegetables and fewer calories overall. the guidelines are updated every five years. agriculture secretary tom vilsack and health secretary kathleen sebelius presented the

new guidelines on monday.ing. this is 45 minutes.i >> good morning. hool o i am the dever of the school of public health services.. the george washington university. roud my pleasure to welcome you this morning announcement. our dedicated research faculty work every day on issues related to food safety, obesity, policy, and epidemiology and public health students, many of whom are in attendance today, are studying how these issues affect the public's health. i also have to acknowledge and thank our wonderful staff as well as the staff at the usda and hhs for putting this event together this morning. we at g.w. share the commitment to promote health, wellness, and nutrition. our urban food task force is working to identify ways the university can support scholarship and instruction on sustainable urban food policies and provide practical information on healthy eating and food preparation to the greater g.w. community. i want to particularly

acknowledge diane robinson napp wife of g.w. president. for her work and involvement in leading this effort. thank you very much. we are honored to have here today two of our country's leading health and nutrition advocates, secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius, and secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack. as a state insurance commissioner, governor of kansas, and today as the country's highest ranking health official, secretary sebelius has been a leader on health care, family and senior issues for more than 20 years. secretary sebelius is guiding the implementation of the historic affordable care act. she also is at the forefront of the obama administration's efforts to build a 21st century health care system for putting a new focus on prevention to promoting electronic health records to expanding the primary care work force.

the partners across the cabinet, she has launched new efforts to make government work better for the american people, including working with secretary vilsack to build a 2112 century food safety system and new guidelines to be announced here today. throughout his distinguished career in public service as mayor, state senator, and governor of iowa, secretary vilsack has had a remarkable record of making positive change in the lives of those who he has served. in the past two years usda supported struggling farmers and ranchers, provided food aid to one in four americans, and implemented the recovery act to create jobs and build a foundation for future economic growth. under secretary vilsack's leadership, usda is working to conserve america's forests and private working lands, clean our water supply, and revitalize rural communities. at the same time usda's strengthening the american agricultural economy, promoting agricultural production and

exports, and working to combat hunger around the world. secretary vilsack is committed to improving the health of america's children by providing the nutritious and balanced meals, encouraging increased physical activity, and improving our food safety system. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming secretary of agriculture tom vilsack. >> thank you very much. good morning, to everyone. i want to thank the dean and also thank president napp and the george washington university community for giving us this great forum for an important set of announcements and discussions today. that are important to this country, as i'm acknowledging folks let me start by acknowledging dr. van horn who was the chair of our advisory group who was working for a number of years in establishings these guidelines. her leadership was very much appreciated. working with folks from h.h.s.

and usda they really put a great deal of effort into these guidelines as reflected by the detailed nature of the guidelines and the important work that's involved. also want to thank all those who were involved in publicly commenting on these guidelines. when we reach out to the public, we obviously have a more informed set of guidelines as we try to address to the needs of the american population and to folks who are very concerned about the situation involving food and nutrition in the united states. so this is an opportunity for us to celebrate the work of this advisory group, to acknowledge that what we announce today is certainly based deeply and steeply in science. the science behind these guidelines is unquestioned. and certainly it's important for us to send a message to american families that these guidelines are designed to provide them an opportunity for healthy eating habits and healthy lifestyles. the president in his state of

the union address talked about an america that outinnovated, outeducated and, and outbuilt the rest of the world. it's extremely difficult to do any of that unless we are a healthy nation. i want to acknowledge the leadership of secretary sebelius in particular as she is helping us sort of redesign our health care system as the dean indicated. a system that will be focused on wellness and prevention and not simply sick care. and it's a system that obviously we are in need of in this country. when we take a look at the high levels of obesity among adults and among children, it is important to have guidelines that will help us deal with that issue of obesity. certainly pleased that congress last year passed the healthy and hunger free kids act of 2010, designed to allow us to do a better job in school lunches and breakfast programs and our nutrition programs in schools. and today's announcement is yet another step in the right

direction. today we announce guidelines. these are basically an opportunity for families to understand and appreciate how to make sure that the calories in and calories out are balanced. i must admit personally that i had never read the dietary guidelines until i got this job. but i read them in detail. i read all of them. and i realized how significantly different my eating habits were from what constituted a healthy patern. so personally my life has changed by virtue of these dietary guidelines and my kristi and i are following the guidelines. we have our little sheet every day. we record what we eat. and we are very, very concerned about calories in and calories out. there are two concepts incorporated in these guidelines that i want to comment on before i turn the podium over to my good friend, secretary sebelius. one of them is this notion of proper balance. if folks want to maintain a

healthy weight, they obviously have to be sensitive to the calories in and calories out. and these guidelines basically talk about the need to balance good eating habits with physical activity. the first lady's let's move initiative has focused attention and resources on this notion of getting people, particularly children more physically active. that is certainly incorporated in these guidelines today. when we talk about calories in and calories out, we also talk about the density, nutritional density of those calories. not every calorie is the same. and these guidelines graphically point this out. we want to place a greater emphasis on meal paternses -- patterns that focus on lean proteins, including fish and seafood. we want to move away from our overreliance in the past on sugar and sodium and saturated fat. we want to make sure that folks understand that eating real food as opposed to necessarily

fortified or dietary supplements is probably the best way for you to make the best use of your calories. and the guidelines clearly point that out. we try to provide healthful hints to folks as they begin to try to maintain that healthy balance. foods to avoid. percentages of foods to avoid. and foods that you want to consume more of. over the course of time, we are going to supplement these guidelines with additional educational information that will make it easier for the american public to understand how to follow these guidelines. and these guidelines also place an additional emphasis on food safety which i certainly appreciate and i know that secretary sebelius does as well. we want to talk about clean, separate, cook, and chill as ways in which we can better handle food so we can substantially reduce the number of food-borne illnesses that are still far too high in this country.

whether it's maintaining a healthy balance, instructions in terms how you might be able to lose weight with calories in and calories out, focus on nutritionally dense calories as opposed to empty calories, the notion of physical activity and food safety, this is a comprehensive science-based effort we announce today. so with that, i'd like to turn the podium over to my good friend, kathleen sebelius, as the dean was correct there is no person more passionate about healthy lifestyles than secretary sebelius. she is a runner. early in the morning i suspect. the rest of us are sort of jogging later in the day. we -- i just can't get up early in the morning. but the secretary has been tremendous advocate and has an extraordinary responsibility with the affordable health care act and doing a great job. kathleen? >> thank you. >> i'm going to start by also

thanking the dean and president knapp and those of us on the g.w. faculty and staff and students for having us back here. the last time i was here we were making an important announcement on tobacco and we are back to talk about the new dietary guidelines. i think it's appropriate to be here at g.w. which has had such a leadership role in the health of all americans. and it's great to be here with my good friend and partner, agriculture secretary tom vilsack. you have heard the dean say that we both were governors and we are governors from food states, kansas and iowa. so our work on these issues did not begin with our new assignments. they have been long-standing and a great collaboration.

we also have worked on issues from food safety to making sure we reach out to children with healthy insurance programs and the partnership with usda has really been invaluable and continues to be, i think, an important initiative moving forward we have had a great team on the expert advisory committee that has been hard at work and i particularly want to recognize our leadership team who has been part of that effort and led by assistant secretary howard koh who is here who if you have tough questions he gets to answer them. later on. but there have been lots of dedicated public servants who make sure that we were basing today's announcements on the best science available and that we move this effort forward. the mission that we have at health and human services is to improve the health and

well-being of every america. we know we can't just concentrate on what happens when people come in contact with hospitals or go to a doctor's office. we also need to pay attention to what impacts everyone's health, that's the air we breathe, food we eat, the lifestyles we lead. and the obesity epidemic, secretary vilsack has mentioned, carries a really steep cost. obesity brings a far higher risk of heart disease, stroke, certain cancers. chronic diseases like these still account for seven out of every 10 deaths in america and most are preventable. 3/4 of our health care costs are directly related to chronic diseases. the costs also weigh heavily on business owners, government budgets, also our ability to grow and innovate as a nation.

you can't be educated if you're sick each and every day. you are not a good student. you won't be as productive or innovative as a working member of this society if your health condition is debilitating. this has a tremendous cost overall on america's prosperity. and it's why the administration has really launched a broad agenda to help give americans the tools they need, the information they need to stay healthy, stay well, and thrive and prosper. and one of the most important people infcan do is prosper. on the latest science and research. and we are updating that information all the time. so they can make the best choices for themselves and their families. that's what the latest edition of the dietary guidelines are all about. concrete steps every family can

take to incorporate into their everyday lives and improve the lives of themselves and their children. steps like controlling calorie intake, moving more and sitting less so you burn more calories. and altogether eating a healthier diet. >> more fruits, and vegetables and whole grains, less sodium, sugar, and saturated fat. we know if we want to become a healthier, stronger, more competitive country, we need to give americans the tools they need to make healthy choices. so we have as a result a healthier student force and work force. these guidelines are really powerful tools. we know there are also other obstacles to living a healthier lifestyle. if you are going to grocery store and have one of two children, you don't always have time to read nutrition facts on the back of a bottle. we are working on updating that

information and making it easier to find and easier to read on the front of a pack. when you go out to eat, sometimes it's difficult to tell if you want to make a healthy choice, what are the healthy choices? that's why the nutrition information will be more readily available on menu boards. we are taking steps to get that information into people's hands. to work with the food industry, work with restaurant industry, to give people additional information. and that's all part of the affordable care act that was passed last year. calorie information, right at the front of a menu, where customers can again take that information in and make the choices that they want to make. the health care law also is reducing some of the financial barriers to have prevented millions of americans from getting preventive care. we want to make sure that folks can access key screenings at no

extra cost. to find out if they have high cholesterol or high blood pressure and then work on getting those conditions under control. even when people have the best information and a clear plan to translating it, there can still be challenges. when you have to walk two miles in some neighbors to get fresh produce at the nearest super market, but only a block away it's easy to get chips or other kinds of high calorie foods, it makes it very difficult to eat nutrition. when it's not safe to play outside or send your children outside, it's very tough for kids to get the exercise they need. so again the recovery act is helping neighborhoods and cities invest in ways to make it easier for people to make healthier choices. from surveying healthier school lunches to designing more

walkable neighborhoods. what all of these examples have in common that our understanding that underneath the statistics about our health care system are families and human beings. they are children and families, they are workers who really do want by and large to do the healthy thing. to eat the right diet, exercise more, follow the doctors instructions. they are not always the easier things to do. and often there are financial challenges to make healthier choices. with this new edition of dietary guidelines, we're putting some best information in people's hands. that's a real step forward. it's going to help us become a healthier country, a more productive country, and a more competitive country. so thank you all again for being here today. i think we're going to invite tom vilsack to come back to the mike. >> okay. with that, i'd like to ask dr. koh and dr. post from usda and

hhs to come up just in case there are questions that require a detailed scientific answer which the secretary and i would like to try to answer. but probably won't do as much as you guys can. with that, we'd like to open it up to questions that folks might have about the guidelines and where we go from here. we just need one -- yes, sir. >> thank you. good morning. my name is james reed, reporter for wrgw news. i know as a teenager still growing, there's not specific guidelines for teenagers. having noticed my friends in college and my family back home, many like to eat more than the recommended guidelines, often eat more and exercise less.

with that, what recommendations would you give to teenagers at such a critical time for developing bodies and health. >> before i turn it over to one of doctors to respond to that question, it is important to note these guidelines are beginning to distinguish between various stages in life. there are adjustments that have to be made as we move through various stages of life. which is reflected in the guidelines generally in terms of focusing on meal patterns and healthy eating patterns. either one of you want to address the issue of teenagers. >> we stress the guidelines apply to all adults and to children over age 2. the general themes that bothic tears have put forward apply to teenagers well. we are very concerned about child obesity because one of three kids are overweight or obese. the major theme of calorie balance and focusing on nutrient-dense foods and also making sure that kids are active

and meet physical activity guidelines. these are all themes relevant to teenagers as well as adults. >> i can also add, there's an excellent resource that's found in the dietary guidelines that gives you a couple of different meal patterns or eating patterns that embody the dietary guidelines. you will be able to find your needs at various calorie levels. that could then be individualized to find out what you need to build a healthy eating pattern. >> at the usda web site, you have the ability to actually type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle that you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis. that gives you a sense of how many calories you should consume to maintain or lose a weight, how you do it in the proper ways. there are ways in which you can at usda.gov sort of determine

for yourself. that's what my wife and i are doing right now. yes, sir. jerry? >> jerry hag. this report says people should reduce their daily sodium to less than 2300 milligrams and people should reduce it to 1500 political -- 1500 milligrams and less than 300 of cholesterol. what's the current level of consumption for the average american? how big of a change could it be? >> i think 3400 milligrams. this is a significant reduction that's being proposed. one that we hope food processors in particular to take into account. these two gentleman could probably talk a little bit about that. or kathleen. sodium. >> so a major remit from this report that virtually all

americans could benefit from a reduction in their sodium intake. those two targets that you mentioned, sir, do apply first to the general population and specific populations. we are particularly concerned about the specific populations who need a 1500 milligram target because that represents about half of the general population and most adults. so there's been a lot of attention to that issue for this updated guidelines. and we thank you for your attention to that. [inaudible comment] >> currently men are getting over the 300 milligram a day target whereas women are getting somewhat less. we are hoping that's a reachable target for the future. >> other questions? >> katherine with the american diabetes association representing 70,000 dietitians across the country. thank you so much for putting

these guidelines together. i have a question. it's interesting that the secretary mentioned he had never read the guidelines before he became secretary. there's a problem in the way the guidelines, as excellent as they are, are marketed. the budget behind the guidelines, the material is excellent. the scientists put two full years into combing the evidence. and put together a comprehensive report for the committee. and then the staff at the central for nutrition policy and promotion worked very hard to put excellent guidelines together for the public which almost no one sees. so how can this be remedied? what needs to be done? >> well, let me talk from the usda perspective. then i'd like secretary sebeilus to weigh in. she did an excellent job of pointing out the number of initiatives that are taking

place today that are not been taking place for some time in in space. for example opinion in areas that we are involved with, our s.n.a.p. program, the supplement nutrition assistance program, to insent the purchase of fruits and vegetables. it's not been done before. we are aware of the needs for more fruits and vegetables in folk's diets. the issue of foot deserts, we have a healthy financing issue initiative that hhs and usda are working on. so many areas that do not have access to full-scale grocery store. it becomes difficult. we are working with the food industry on labeling, which the secretary mentioned. within schools, we're excited about the potential for the healthy and hunger free kids act of 2010 to engage schools in a meaningful way to improve school breakfast and lunch and educating parents and choices

about the choices and making sure the choices are consistent. the dietary guidelines fit into this and allow us a road map if you will in all of these spaces to help inform. i think grocers, food producers are becoming much more concerned about the obesity issue and are trying through the first ladies let's move initiative to focus on this. there's a lot of energy in the space that maybe hasn't been the space before. we're always looking for more creative ways to get all of the information out. >> i think the secretary is absolutely right. not only have a lot of the this information been sort of o peek in the past, but there really hasn't been much 6 a -- much of a focus on how it impacts us a nation, how it impacts our students. i think in addition to these specific initiatives that the secretary outline, there's also a were exciting set of programs going on around the country.

putting communities -- communities putting prevention to work efforts which is in everything from schools to neighborhoods trying to determine what are the best strategies to really begin to impact folks behavior and how to get people's attention. so not only i think will there be information available that really never has been available in an easy to read, easy to understand way. but understanding that information is step one, and having access to choices is really a critical piece of the puzzle. and we, frankly, have one of the best spotlight microphones with the first lady leading this effort. i think americans who have never really thought about this, or didn't know where to get the information, or didn't have an understanding of how this impacted themselves and their children now will have a great opportunity to do that. so i think what you are going to find is a lot more attention to the science. a lot more information being

spread on a regular basis. and a lot more ability of people to make better choices for themselves and their families. >> and also to add the -- to the discussion that you heard, there is a very fantastic -- very good resource that is part of this dietary guidelines that's found in the aden kicks. -- appendix. it's the key to complementing strategies. we hope this is different than in the past of the dietary guidelines. that'll be the jump off point for our partners to take the information and magnify it. >> petty star with sanis news. can you go into the incentive for fruits and vegetables? how those programs would work? >> we are currently experimenting in the state of massachusetts with an effort to see whether or not we can within

the s.n.a.p. cart itself, the electronic benefit transfer cart we can incooperate the discount where the goshers -- grocers gets paid full value, but only credited 70 or 80%. allows the beneficiary to expand the purchases power. we've got a year-long scientific review of this to determine whether or not that actually moves the needle in terms of purchasing decisions. so that. >> well, and recently i think it's been in the last few years, the wic program has been expanded under the women infant and children fruits and the vegetables are able to be purchased with the buying power. that's important.

we also have as part of this community putting prevention to work effort, i know in louisville, they are now subsidizing fruits and vegetables in what are basically dollar stores to make it much more convenient for people to buy fresh fruits. mayor bloomberg has a green cart strategy that literally is coming into neighborhoods in a way that old men came throughout neighborhood delivering mil. this -- milk. this is delivering fresh fruits and vegetables in areas they weren't available. i know secretary vilsack has done a great job mapping the deserts that we couldn't identify about how far people had to go and working with local leaders on strategy. part of it is access, and part of it is pricing. i think both are being addressed as we move forward. >> one other program is in

farmers markets. again, making s.n.a.p. benefits available to use their cards at farmers markets. and many farmers markets are developing discounts where you essentially for every dollar of fruits and vegetables that you purchase, you actually get a 50 cent discount if you will. you'll be able to purchase twice as much. a lot of different opportunities here. >> hi, my name is sara diamond. i'm a student here at g.w. apart from what you just mentioned about fruits and vegetables, how can we reconcile the other foods recommended by the guidelines are expensive than the foods we're supposed to avoid? >> well, one the things that we're trying to do is to provide people with information at least on the usda web site about recipes and ways in which you can stretch your food dollar and still purchase foods that are good for you.

it doesn't always have to necessarily be that it's more expensive. particularly if you know how to use these foods in very creative ways. one thing we've been doing is we've been accumulating recipes and making that information available on our web site. the second thing is by encouraging community gardens, farmers markets, and things of that nature, i think there's a growing supply which makes it perhaps potentially a little bit more accessible, and possibly more affordable depending upon the local market. sometimes you don't have as much transportation expense involved in pricing those. the first lady's recent announcement with walmart is a good example of the kind of purchasing power that will potentially result in some of those products being far less expensive than they have been in the past. so i think there's a lot going on again in this space. but our view is that they are creative ways don't have to

concede it's always more expensive. >> marian burros, politico. in the '70s, eat less meat. george mcgovern was criticized. got to say eat lean meat. why don't your guidelines specifically discuss fruits and whole grains discuss meat? you have to go deep into the guidelines to see you suggesting that ground beef might be one place where there's too much fat. why do you call it solid fat instead of porterhouse steak, or why guidelines include cheese? it's confusing. >> well, i'm going to let the two scientists talk about this. the guidelines mention a need

for more consumption of fish and seafood in the lean protein area. that's a specific recommendation which goes to your question. secondly, again the focus on calories in and calories out and food dense foods i think is an important frame. that folks are going to use to make decisions about where they want to spend their calories, if you will. once they understand how many minutes or hours they have to be on a treadmill, to continue -- to work off some of the areas that we've talked about in terms of sugar and so forth, i think they are going to begin making even more informed decisions. i think in the guidelines, there are references here. we are going to continue to educate folks about that. >> i would also add that dietary guidelines stress a variety and also stress building a healthy eating pattern. there's a flexibility in

building those eating patterns. your protein sources could come from a variety of places. seafood is one of them. it could be that you source your protein from beans and other nuts and seeds as well. so you have the ability to craft a pattern that meets your needs within your calorie needs and delivers the knew -- newt -- nutrients that you need without specific foods that should be in the diet. [inaudible question] >> i'm saying -- what i'm saying is you do not anywhere -- why don't you specifically say eat less meat? why not? >> in suggesting that you should have more fish and seafood, you are essentially saying that's a good substitute and good lean

protein. it's a way of saying what you are saying. >> what about cheese? >> there's low-fat cheese? >> why doesn't it talk about low-fat cheese? >> it does talk about low-fat dairy. and it's not as if we are trying to eliminate all foods in all categories. it's really about making sure that you have a balanced approach to your eating. and that you are focusing on calories in and calories out. >> christopher berger, exercise science here at george washington. i have kind of a two-part question. in the past -- i think we all agree that whole foods are probably the best way to get a balanced diet. in the past the guidelines have often recommended foods like liver and kale and foods that are probably not going to hit with the american public at large any time soon.

my question is do the guidelines address supplementation in any way whatsoever? and i ask that question being from exercise science because the portion of the population who's interested in improving their performance, it's not a small part of the population. people who want to gain lean body mass, it's not a small portion of the population. i'm interested in how the guidelines address that population to a certain extent and maybe to the extent that it involves supplementation. are we addressing that at all? thank you. >> well, if you look at the report, there are sections on food groups to reduce, and also foods groups and minerals to increase. and if you look at the latter chapter, you'll see items like vitamin d and calcium and potassium being discussed. this is all part of a broad view on healthy eating and maintaining healthy weight. that's where i think your

question comes in. >> i'll also emphasis the guidelines are generally for americans two and older. we do recognize there are subpopulations in need of supplements for promoting health. women who may become pregnant, for example, there are some specific recommendations for populations like that. we do acknowledge supplementation is needed. certainly to promote health or to avoid chronic illness. >> way in the back there. >> thanks. alice, national fisheries institute. you say, you recommend higher seafood, or eating more, that differs from the fda guidelines. how do we explain that to pregnant or breast-feeding women when that resupposed to be about

what they eat? they might be worrying about differing guidelines on seafood intake. >> well, what we know is that with the dietary guidelines, of course, become an -- it becomes the action now for federal agencies to make changes to their programs in concert with these guidelines. because they are, in fact, the national nutrition policy. so we'll expect consistency as we move through this year and into the next years. >> and there is a special section on dietary recommendations for pregnant women. the specific issue of fish is brought up there. and the balance again is to recommend increased fish intake for pregnant women while making sure they don't consume certain types that expose them to mercury. there's deck indicated language if you look in the report there. it's very carefully put forward. >> we have time for two more questions. >> yes, sir.

>> i'm peter farnam with the nutrition tabloid society. there's a restriction of carbohydrate intake reduces obesity, as well as the chronic diseases that you mention and type ii diabetes, i was wondering if any recommendation is mentioned in the guidelines. they don't seem to be memoried -- mentioned at all in the hand outyou gave this morning. >> the amount to be consumed or concerned with of carbohydrates. ultimately the evidence that was first by the advisory committee and translated in plain language in the document that we're releasing today really portrays or conveys the eating pattern that is one that deals with

carbohydrates. those that are most concerned with regard to the empty calories, for example, added sugars. and so it does deal with carbohydrates. but it doesn't specify a consideration that carbohydrates should come from any particular type of food or in an amount greater or perhaps in concert with those comments. the evidence is just not there to support the views that were expressed in the comments we received. >> one more. on this side. >> hi, brooke weiss from the arthritis foundation. in your report, you mention many chronic diseases, chronic heart, obesity, stroke, one thing i haven't heard mentioned is arthritis which serves asunderlying cause to many of

these chronic diseases. what programming or marketing catering to the arthritis community which is very, you know, hard to reach, that promotes these healthy eating habits and guidelines and prevention of these other chronic diseases? >> well, certainly obesity drives many adverse health outcomes in osteoarthritis is a major source of morbidity for people who are affected. thank you for raising that point. again, the overall message is a healthy weight can help people avoid adverse outcomes like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and certainly arthritis, as you mentioned. >> well, thank you all very much. we appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. this is the first of obviously will be many opportunities for us to highlight the dietary guidelines. [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next on c-span2, senators debate a repeal of the health care law. then a senate budget committee hearing --

>> there's no other way forward. in in -- in this crisis, we have

to learn to work together. californians first, members of a political party second. >> today step by step we are putting ourselves on a better, more sustainable path and pushing ahead on the road to growth. >> find and watch the state of the state addresses as well as inaugurals from the governors online. search, watch, clip, and share with every program since 1987. >> senator minority leader mitch mcconnell today said he'll force a vote on the repeal of the health care law later this week. last week the house voted to repeal the law and on monday, a federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional. today they debated the repeal of the health care law. we'll here from respects john cornyn and john kyl, and republican republicans jay rockefeller.

this is just under an hour. >> we'll speak on the republicans leader, senator mcconnell that would in effect repeal the health care bill that was passed on christmas eve at 7:00 a.m. in the morning about a year ago. a year ago this last christmas eve. since the time that the bill was passed, strictly along party lines, 60 votes, all of our colleagues on the democratic side voted for it, all of the folks on our side voted against it. we predict the the bill would lead to increase in premiums for those who have health insurance. it would raise taxes on everyone in order to fund this huge expansion of the federal government. some $2.7 trillion worth of extra spending. and it would also take half a trillion from medicare which, as you know madame president, which

is one of our troubled entitlement programs. it's sorely in need of reform. it takes a half a trillion from medicare to fund yet a new entitlement program this health care bill. we also know that on at least two occasions now a federal judge has found that this bill violates the constitution of the united states because -- it says that congress -- both of these judges have said that congress has overreached it's authority under that constitution. the arguments were made there was congress' power. i agree with the law professor, jonathan turley who's comments i saw today. who said that if the supreme court the united states upholds this health care bill as being within congress' power, federalism is dead. there is no limit to the federal government's authority if the federal government can compel

you or me or anyone else to buy a government-approved product. there are no limitations. the 10th amendment of the united states constitution says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. it might as well be written autoof -- written out of the constitution. that's why i think the decisions are important, one in florida and virginia. they reveal a defect in this bill over and above the others that i've already mentioned. raising taxes, taking from medicare to create a new entitlement program, and, of course, imposing this onerous mandate. but the real problem with this bill, madame president, is more nuanced and -- than my remarks would suggest. what it does is by imposing a mandate on employers to provide

government-approved health insurance, or pay a penalty what many employers are going to find out is that it will cost them loss to pay the penalty than it will to provide health insurance for their employees. and thus many americans who have health coverage they like which the president promised them time and time again they would be able to keep if they liked it will find that's not the case. because employers will making a rational business decision where it costs less to pay the penalty than it does to provide the government mandated health care at the health insurance. they will simply choose to drop their employees and thus they will have to go into the exchanges which are supposed to be created by 2014 under this bill. now what's wrong with that? well, we know that -- this bill was gamed in all sorts of ways

to try to provide the congressional budget office score which actually only reflects a approximate of -- fraction of its true cost. the most accurate estimate is the bill will cost $2.7 trillion over ten years as opposed to the roughly $1 trillion price tag that the congressional budget office was given in part because it was scored over a ten year period of time. but only six years of implementation. and through various other ways, as i say, that's score, the true cost of this bill was gamed. one the things that the bill provides is that individuals who go to the state-based exchanges to buy their health insurance because they don't have it available from their employer will be subsidized by the federal taxpayers up to, i believe, it's $88,000 for a family of four. what happens if a whole lot more people drop their coverage or their employers drop their coverage and are forced to go to the state-based exchanges in

order to buy their health care which is subsidized to this degree? well, it's going to explode the cost of in health care bill in ways that the congressional budget office score does not adequately reflect. i'm not quibbling with the congressional budget office. they take the assumptions that they are asked to take and they do the best they can to try to predict what the cost will be. but again it's possible and, indeed this is an example, to gain the congressional budget office scoring process to make it look much cheaper than it will actually be once fully and finally implemented. and so at a time when we are going to be asked to raise the debt limit, our credit card is maxed out, nearly maxed out at $14 trillion plus, at a time when our deficits are $1.5 trillion, that's just for this

current last fiscal year, we are left with the question that's can we -- everything else aside about the health care bill. can we and can the american people afford it? i would say the answer to that is absolutely not. because we can do so much better by making sure the government doesn't get between patients and their doctor and by leaving the flexibility and the choices in the hands of consumers to make decisions that are in their best interest. i mean we could, if we really tried, and i hope we will, to come up with a better way of delivering health care. because unfortunately, we -- this bill did not -- well, really squandered an opportunity to try to help bend that cost curve down. indeed, all of the evidence is that it ends the cost curve up and makes it more expensive. madame president, let me

conclude on this thought, at a time when the president's fiscal commission says the fiscal situation is dire and unsustainable, at a time when the president, i had hoped, during the state of the union message would say this fiscal commission that i appointed has come up with a report. we need to take this seriously and need to work in bipartisan basis to try to fix what is broken about our federal government's finances. the president didn't do that. he talked about investment. which we all know when the federal government invests money, it's really code for more spending. and we've been on a spending binge the last two years with 42 cents on every dollar borrowed from the next generation and beyond. we know we can't keep it up. beyond the fundamental problems with the bill, number one, it's unconstitutional, so held by two federal judges, it will bend and

continues to make health care more affordable, and denies to keep what they have because of the incentives, it puts on employers to dump into the employees into the changes and get the subsidies that congress voted on which will make the bill even more expensive than it was originally thought to be. this bill is one that should be repealed. we can, working together in a bipartisan basis, do better. this is what happens when one side or the other overreaches is they think the victory is worth it when, in fact, what we find out, there's a tremendous backlash by the american people reflected in the november 2, election. the more they learn about this bill, they don't like it more. they like it less. and now that the federal -- two federal judges have held that this bill is unconstitutional, it's time for us to take this matter up again once we repeal the bill and do a better job

that we should have done in the first place. madame president, i yield the floor. >> from arizona. >> thank you. i want to comment my colleague from tech, former supreme court justice of texas in analyzing the legal issues as he has just done. yet another indication of why it is time for us to start over. and i join him in urging repeal and replacement of this health care bill. i'd like to speak just briefly about yet another reason why this needs to be done and it's a very specific example. it concerns my home state of arizona. and there are other states that are in the same position. i can speak to the specifics with respect to my own state. and it has to do with just one of the many burdensome new mandates. in the bill as we know, there are mandates on individuals to forever insurance, for example, as my colleague was says. mandates on families and companies and mandates on states as well.

i want to talk about the mandates on state which with respect to the medicaid provisions of the bill are called maintenance of effort mandates or moe hasn't dates. let me describe what that it. the maintenance of effort requirement forces an unfunded medicaid requirement on states by denying them the full ability to manage their medicaid to fit their budget and unique medicaid populations. this is a huge problem because arizona along with most other states is experiencing a dire budget crisis. our state has lost over 300,000 jobs in the last few years. and revenue collections are down by 34% since the start of the recession. in the 2010 fiscal year, arizona collected about $3 billion less in gross revenues than three year prior in 2007. during the same period, enrollment in the medicaid program has increased by 44%.

i mean think of that. more than 1.3 million arizonans are now covered by medicaid. that's more than 20% of the entire population of our state. ordinarily, the state would be able to dial back that coverage in order to fit within it's budget. but believe it or not, the obamacare law that was passed here prevents a state from managing it's own medicare -- excuse me, medicaid program by determining who is going to be covered by that program. right now the arizona program consuming almost 30% of the state's general fund spending. and that's an increase of 17% over four years ago. so arizona could, as i said, dial this back expect for one thing. and that is obamacare. as our governor, jan brewer, noted in a recent letter to speaker boehner i'm quoting the growth in arizona medicaid

spending is a key cause of our budget crisis. we cannot afford this increase without gutting every other state priority such as education and public safety. end of quote. so the arizona legislature has taken steps to address this. they have now cut $2.2 billion in spending from a $10 billion budget. but that doesn't go far enough to address the rest of their budget problems, despite these cuts, the budget shortfall is projected to be $1.2 billion in the next fiscal year. let me describe the maintenance of effort requirement or mandate affects the budget. in 2009, the federal government imposed a mandate on states by which states would not change their medicaid eligibility standards or methodologies and procedures in place on july 1, 2008. this sounds identical to the maintenance of effort in obamacare.

there's one crucial difference. the federal government maintenance of effort stimulus requirement that was in the stimulus bill was funded by the federal government. so the staid was not adversely affected from the budget stand point. under the stimulus, the states received an enhanced federal share of their medicaid cost. but under obamacare, the maintenance of effort is still there. the state haves to pick it up. they are stuck with unfunded mandate. even though states like arizona can't afford the obligations, obamacare has forced an extension of the requirements until 2014, but without providing any assistance to pay the costs. in june of 2011, when stimulus funds expire, arizona share of its medicaid program will increase by an astounding $700 million. the annual cost of the mandate is almost $1 billion. which is simply unaffordable.

this problem is especially acute for arizona and a handful of other states because we actually expanded medicaid eligibility for childless adults beyond federal requirements. so arizona in an effort to cover more people by law included additional people in the medicaid coverage. adults without children. rather than allow states like arizona to cut back to the level of other states, for example, to forego that coverage for now, the health care law, obamacare, freezing in all of the disparities. there's a big difference between and among the states depending on how liberal and effect their coverage is. we have tried to do our best to find ways to e mill rate the problem. we have found medicaid fraud prevention. there's been very difficult decisions made, for example, including reimbursing health care providers with less money.

as you can imagine, that hasn't gone over well. even more controversy, arizona has stopped medicaid funding for several kinds of transplant on october 1. this is a kind of rations that's required by obamacare. the state cannot afford to provide the most expensive procedures. therefore, it has to cut them back, all because they are prevented by law from dialing back the coverage of the adults without children. the one place they can cut on transplants. a very sad day, as i said. there's nothing to do with say about it. nobody is placed with the outcome. there's no other options. even that option doesn't save enough to forstall the budget crisis. many of those who have been critics of the decisions with effect to transplants, the governor had to make that difficult decision because the

health care reform bill eliminating a key option that she otherwise would have had to dial back the coverage to the level of the other states. before the epactment, the federal government and states were partners in health care delivery. now states are nearly a financialing mechanism. what states need is permanent, produced medicaid demand by way of authority to reduce eligibility standards for their medicaid programs. as i'm suggesting, all arizona wants the authority to do is to dial it back to other states are. governor brewer made a former request for secretary sebeilus from a waiver. since the administration has granted 700 waivers to company and labor union, one can only hope the same fairness will be provided to states who are much more crucial partners in the federal government under the delivery of health care. under the terms of request, arizona would preserve arizona

coverage for one million arizonans who represent the score of the mission. the aged, disabled, blind, pregnant women, and children. i support the governor's request, and i urge the administration to grant the waiver. but ultimately, madame president, only repeal of this law will provide permanent relief to all of the states like arizona and all of the other states similarly situated. so i am strongly in support of the amendment that provides for repeal and replacement with something that will work and will not punish our families, our residents, and our states. >> senator from new york. >> thank you, madame president. i've come to address the two bill -- the two amendments before us. first i want to solution my colleague senator rockefeller and all of those senator hutchinson and all of those on both sides of the aisle that have bought the faa bill before

us. it's something that's needed. it's long over due. in america we don't have a gps system where just about every western country does, even mongolia does, tibet does not. to move forward, modernize our airports, it's important for jobs, it's important for travelers convenience, but i would say most of all, it's important for mesh's productivity. when people sit and wait, planes delays, flights canceled, the amount of output that country loses is enormous. we are losing much moreen france, germany, and england. they have the modern systems. it's about time we put them in. there are some that say let's go back to the 2006 level of spending. in 2006, the budget did not have a gps system. well, certainly we have to cut where that's waste. just across the board, roll the clock back doesn't make much sense. technology, the world advances

we cannot mark backwards. there are certain things that we need to keep the country strong. the president talked about some of those in his address. investments and transportation has been one since the ways the erie canal helped my state. thank god. it's sort of a do and don't in my opinion. the health care bill, we have a long debate. we all know how long it was. the american people decided, the majority do not want to repeal the bill. in fact, 80% don't. even those who want to change it, the majority say don't repeal it, just change it. and that's the point here. senator stabenow is offering than amendment to change something in the bill that needs change. the change in the reporting requirements to 1099 put an onerous obligation on small business people. my dad was a small businessman.

and i know how small business people struggle. and to ask them to file paperwork every time they bought something new even of low cost, it's a bit over the top. so i'm glad we are repealing that. no one is claiming ownership, it's going to pass in a bipartisan way. none of us on this side of the aisle are saying that the health care bill can't be improved. but to just repeal it, without putting anything in place, there are a number of problems. one problem which we'll see tomorrow when the actual vote is called, would increase the deficit by $260 billion in the first decade and $1 trillion in the second. because the health care bill does cut some costs. we know there is a tremendous amount of duplication, inefficiency, waste in our health care system. it's the best in the world. it's probably the least efficient in the world. and our goal and our job is to keep the quality care for people, but at the same time reduce the inefficiency that

costs the government and costs businesses. so it does reduce the deficit. when our colleagues are offer repealing, and senator mcconnell, our leader, republican leader, offered to repeal it, he's going to increase the deficit. we have all of the talk that we have to reduce the deficit. the first move that the other side makes, whether you like the health care or not is increase. why wouldn't they propose $260 billion in other cuts to keep the bill deficit neutral. the second point is this. repeal says get rid of everything. it's simple, it's easy, it's quick. it's wrong. and there are many good things in this bill supported not only by the majority of americans, the vast majority, many of which are supported by the majority of republican voters who are polled. but even supported by many members on the other side of the aisle. i've heard them speak. even the new freshman class that

is coming in to the house, very militant. but they said. but i'm not for repealing this or repealing that. so why can't our colleagues on the other side of the aisle at least acknowledge that there are very good things that people like. when they say repeal, do they want to repeal the provision that makes it easier for senior citizens to pay for prescription drugs? the so-called donut hole which says after you you -- this comes from the medicare bill that george bush put forth, not from the health care bill. but they didn't have enough money to pay for it. they said that after $2500, seniors would have to pay prescription drug cost on their own. any of us who buy prescription drug, i do. just taking one for my back, my back went out yesterday, knowing how expensive they are.

you get up to $2500 when you are a senior citizen and need eight medications, two more blood pressure, one more diabetes, one more cholesterol, you name it. you get up to that in no time. and our seniors in my state, and i'm sure in yours madame president, and every one of the other 48 states, are having real trouble paying for prescription drugses once they reach that donut hole. once they reach the level after which medicare no longer pays. in the health care bill we deal with that. we reduce their cost 50% in the first year. that saves the average senior citizen, and this is not chicken feed, $550. by the time it's fully complemented, we save them $2400 a year. do you want to repeal that? well, when you vote for repeal, you are voting to repeal it. how about this one? there are countless american

families who have kids in their early 20s. they get out of college, they get a job. it's hard to get a job. we should be focusing on job creation, not on repealing the bill. the faa does that as i mention. they have a dilemma. the new jobs, they are new and not paying the top dollar most of them. they don't come with health care. what do these young people do? they can't afford the health care themselves, the $800, $900, $1,000 a month. they are not making that much money. god forbid they get into a car accident or serious disease, how can they be without health care? it's a dilemma that has plagued american countries. the health care bill corrects it. here's what it says very simply. that any young person, 21 to 26 can stay on their family's health care plan. it's a great idea. very popular. i want to ask my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle who are going to vote for repeal. are you for taking away the benefits of young people 21 to 26 to stay on their family's health care plan if they wish? i doubt it. how about this one, we all know that preventive medicine saves billions. and so in the health care bill, every senior citizen on medicare gets a wellness check up free once a year to encourage them to go in. why? not because we want the giveaways. but the statistics show overwhelmingly and without doubt conclusively when senior citizens get a preventive care check up, not only are they healthier, but it saves the medicare system billions and billions of dollars. you catch, god forgive someone has that, melanoma before it gets into the lymph node?

it's a simple procedure rather than months of illness. you give people a come on -- colon os cowpie. do you want to repeal those? tell every senior citizen that you don't get the wellness checkup which will save billions? i can't believe you want to do that. to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. how about this? small business. small businesses are not required to have health care now. under our bill if they are under 50 employees they won't be required. some of them provide health care. some do it because it's a good way to retain a good young employee, or good middle age or older employee. some do it because the employer's just a good guy -- or

gal. well, what we tell them is if you have a business, that makes less than $1.2 trillion and have fewer than 25 workers, we will give you a 35% tax credit for that health care. it's a great thing. hundreds of thousands of businesses in my state of new york will benefit, started january 1. and what does it mean? it means a) more people get health care, b) businesses have more money to start on job creation, because the expense is defrayed, and c) it may mean a business that wasn't going to provide health care can now. want to get rid of that? tax credit for small businesses. mainstay of america. i don't think you do. how about this one? we all have heard of insurance companies, you call up your insurance company. my wife