[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and from capitol hill we take you live now to the center for american progress here in washington d.c. we will be hearing about a new report, finding higher unemployment and more economic anxiety among young people. the report is called the state of young america and the serving about 900 people between the ages of 18 and 34, asking about financial prospects on policies they held by people their age. today's discussion will hear from authors that the report in the white house liaison to young americans. you are watching live coverage here on c-span 2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. welcome. thank you for coming to the program today. we welcome you and are happy to have you. my name is trained to address or a progress 2050, a project to center for american progress to promote new ideas for an increasingly diverse america are excited to have this event today. i'm one of the quick speakers. and i are looking for to the conversation i introduce our speakers. they have long bios. i'll start with jamelle, jamelle bouie. at the nation institute. he's a blogger and journalist in washington d.c. since july 2010 he has been a ready fellow for the american

prospect and his work has appeared at the washington independent, cnn.com, the luke 21 and a number of other blogs and outlets. next i'd like to introduce eduardo garcia peered eduardo garcia is an advocacy associate for campus progress it is a graduate of california state university fullerton, where he majored in american studies and psychology. as a student he was focused on local economic issues and their impact on immigrant working families in advocating and organizing for affordable housing and eduardo became interested in a row of immigrant communities play in shaping just public policy. next to eduardo we have ronnie cho, the white house for young americans. prior to joining the white house who is editor at the "newsweek" daily peace company in new york city, where he wrote and edited content related to social justice, innovation and

entrepreneurship. in 2009, cho or to the federal communications commission federal communications commission is fighting there at the national and also served as associate your other legislative affairs at the u.s. department of homeland security. next to ronnie we have had there. heather mcghee is director of the washington d.c. office who developed and executed a strategy for increasing the organization impact of federal policy debates in d.c. previously, she was a deputy policy director for its economic and economic policy for the john edwards for president 2008 campaign and a program associate in the most economic representative program. and finally we have come a aaron smith, cofounder executive director of young invisibles. he is a native of yonkers new york an honors graduate of morris college and crew loud of graduate university. in the office of congress chris van hollen and then work for the

aging profit working to keep seniors in their homes in d.c. is. he went back to yonkers in 2006 to be a campaign manager of the new york state assembly race and went on to become the chief legislative aide for the yonkers city council president. please welcome the panel and were looking forward to the conversation. [applause] >> thank you for coming out. with the great recession is it that trap, it's really easy to read a report like this and come away with the sense that things are terrible. you know, you can go down the list of facts report details the young americans are graduating with large student debt load and entering an economy with much opportunity for an appearance at. for those fortunate enough to attend college, it's likely that they will leave college unable to deal with what they have over the next several years.

for those who were in college but have not yet graduated there is a fair chance they might have to drop out because of that. for young people who simply a high school education, the job market is terrible as a result of changes in the global economy, the climate unions and so on. we know the story. likewise there are a whole host of disparities among young people but of also disadvantaged millions. young african-americans and latinos latinos are less likely to finish high school and less likely to attend college are less likely to graduate from college and they are more likely to earn below the median wage for people in their age group. they are less likely to have health insurance and are less likely to be employed. and if you turn to young people are undocumented immigrants, in addition to the offer mentioned problems, they also do with the

fact they don't have citizenship, the fact that political cultures becoming increasingly hostile and their interests. and it's just a mass. so you know, easy to read this and come away thinking, wow, is for terrible, what can we do. but i think it would be wrong to treat this report is another exercise in despair. they are things that we can approach as a country and community to fix. and so the right way is to look at this report isn't so much as look at all these problems, but has a diagnosis of sewers for the patient being young america. that is sick, that is ailing, but has a lot of bigger and it's still up for the challenge is. challenges ahead.

so with that in mind, i want to start the discussion here with aaron smith was held craft this report. if you could sort of detail some of the information from the survey and give us a sense of what young people are thinking, how they view their future. >> absolutely. first let me see thank you to center for american progress for having us here. it's a tremendous opportunity. just quickly about young invisibles for national youth advocacy organization. we partnered with this project because we wanted to understand the challenges that young adults face when i say young adults i say 18 to 34. not only in response to the long-term trends. and i am going to talk about the paul and heather will talk about the report itself. but one thing i want to highlight is yes there are

reasons for gloom. there's significant challenges, boils the fun reasons optimism and hope and a real set of priority for congress that young people have been a thinking through. so let me quickly say the poll was conducted with a bipartisan poll with lake research partners in bellwether consulting at 872 people surveyed, cell phone and land mines. and i am just going to give some of the high-level poll results in a few different categories. you will see first of all the tremendous challenges that young adults, my generation phase. first of all we know youth unemployment is very high. any people don't realize how low income this population is. so over 50% of young adults use less than $30,000 a year. when we pulled them, even the once employed, only 53% were in their children's field. many struggled with personal

financial situation and it was particularly an acute issue for young people of color. so for example 60% of young latinos said their personal financial situation was either poor and young african-americans. across-the-board young people have seen the level of debt increase over the last few years are the biggest reasons are student that, credit card for medical bills. that is a consistent problem and the economic conditions are causing young people come out of a hardship right now, but causing them to delay things they would otherwise want to do. so for example, 46% have delay purchasing a home. a quarter have delayed getting married. 30% delayed starting a family. these are life decisions will have tremendous impact not only in the young people put on our economy and society.

just to talk about education, so we found in our poll we had about a third of young adults have either a college degree or associates degree, which many people don't realize is about the norm for this population. only about a third of young people graduating get that degree. not surprisingly about 76% say college has become even harder to afford in the past five years and while they're absolutely concerned about how they'll pay for college, we found they were even more concerned about how the offender kids to college. so they have a long-term set of concerns. all these economic trends are having impact and 40% of young adults in their generation will be worth off than their parents. their 57% say the middle class is disappearing. and 30% think in today's america

if you're born into uneconomic repair likely to stay there in part because the rules are set up in an unfair way. so there's tremendous frustration and can learn, but there is also this consistent hope and optimism. for example, 69% say they still believe the american dream was achievable for their generation. they valued getting education, hard work and innovation as the keys to success. they want to start businesses, so 54% neither want to start a business or a party started a business and the number is even higher. it's about 60% for young african-americans and young latinos. so that is certainly reason for optimism. one area in particular, health care where young people are the largest group of uninsured, we have 30 seen some major progress thanks to the global care act, or over a million young adults are now gained coverage. and i think that's an example of

how congress can really step out to the plate and address one of these big long-term challenges. so later on we'll talk or about priorities, so i'm going to save some of those remarks were then. but thank you very much. >> heather, i may tell but the law does the data reporter. would you like to describe it? >> sure. so just use a little bit about dean, a nonpartisan non-profit organization that works to advance a more robust democracy in america and more widely shared economic prosperity. we have been around for 11 years. for most of those years we have really focused on the issue of this generation, actually thankfully still my generation. the youngest generation of americans, which is the most diverse and the first in history to most likely not do better than their parents did as they enter adulthood. we really see this generation,

18 to 34-year-olds ruffly. has sort of the bellwether for the results of a series of economic policy decisions, most of which were made around the time that most of us on this stage were born that have really made it a lot harder for people to work or educate their way into the middle class. so this story spoke about young people, but also about our country and economic choices that are affecting everyone. but for this country coming-of-age sort of exclusively under this new economic paradigm, it's really having an aside that we went to take a look nns report the state of young america. we wanted to both tell a story of what happened during the recession of our young people are now and tell a broader generational contract story. so throughout the report, which looks at data in five different areas, we compare how young people are doing today in 2010

or 2011, whenever the latest data is that how essentially their parents were doing at the same point in their lives in 1880s. 18 to 34-year-olds and allows us to really show the generational comparison. on the first that we looked at, jobs and the economy, the picture is quite disturbing because around the same time many of us on the stage for foreign and around the same time this generation was getting its start, policymakers and corporate leaders in the country is really sort decided through later policy, tax policy, trade policy can transform our country's economy from one that was a good producing economy to more of a knowledge and service economy. sunland and server vivid terms, we really transformed over the past 40 years from an economy where the largest employer was gm with unionized middle class jobs that could support a family on one income to wal-mart, with

nonunion, low-wage part-time no benefit, no career jobs. so that's sort of snapshot is a picture that if you want to drill into its been going on with young americans, you can really see that today the typical young man makes 10 cents less on the dollar than his father would have been 1880. young women make 17 cents more on that dollar than their mothers did, but there are two important caveats to that story progress. one is that their mothers in 1880 or much less likely to even be in the workforce, to have a college degree and some making progress on other standards gave progress or a gender standpoint, but not in terms of economic security standpoint. importantly young women today, even though they've made progress every generation still earn over $8000 less in inflation-adjusted terms than young men did in 1880. so we see a generational decline

in terms of wages. young people are much more likely to have part-time contingent work, more likely to not have an effect, pensions, health care. in fact the only workers we have seen have an increase in wages over this generational time. as the nose of a college degree. now that would be fine had the trade-offs from a good producing economy to a service and knowledge to economy come hand-in-hand with a robust investment in education. if we're going to say it's going to become harder for you not to get a middle-class life come you don't have a colored sugary come in the country think what they were going to make it easier for people to get a college degree. unfortunate that is not what happened. in fact the same time college education became a ticket to a middle-class life, our report shows that the country pulled back on investments in education and training on a per capita

level. average tuition today, college tuition is three times higher than it was in 1880. i think we all know that. we all experienced that, this scene is tripled over the course of a generation is quite stark. in 1980 the maximum pell grant covered 69% of the cost of attendance. today it only covers 34% cost of attendance. for now as a result we have two out of three students graduate with student loan debt and an average of $24,000. lester the total student loan debt in the country eclipsed the credit card debt of the entire nation. over $1 trillion of course because of the recession and the incredible joblessness among the young even college graduates, we are now seeing default rates for student loans which are not dischargeable bankruptcy go up 34% over the past two years. we also looked at because i know we often think of young people is just students.

young people 18 to 34 are also parents, also people who are likely to start a family, buy a house and all of that. so we tried to look at the cost of living and raising a family and found some really starting specifics there as well. but just in the interest of time, i will just say quickly that over 40% of young households spend more than a third of their income on rent and importantly i think it's always gets short trips, but the cost of childcare, which is a john adult issue because people are averaging 25 or 262 sold and have their first child. the cost of childcare actually exceeds the cost of rent in most metropolitan areas and exceeds the cost of public college education in many, many states. >> brawny, i know the white house has taken recent steps to help students alleviate their

debt. what else it does the white house pursuing along these lines? i guess mark bradley, to what extent is the administration working to sort of help young americans find work, develop their skills and get a college education, the whole nine yards. >> so the situation we find ourselves in in the white house and the press is certainly acutely aware of, but i think when you go back to the career of the president from his actions as community organizer in the southside of chicago many years ago to his role as president today he's always been an advocate on behalf of young people is sort of shared a special relationship with young folks. so the things we are trying to get passed and we have as of late, as part of her we can't wait initiative the president has put out, going back to raising the power grant benefits

have been historically high numbers. but obviously that is, as you mentioned, not enough to cover most of the cost of the higher education. but we are doing what we can to help mitigate that. with interest rates trying to cut out the middleman with lenders and borrowers to create some savings they are. also income base payment reforms, letting folks have an ability to pay off their debt in a way that is responsible for their own situations. if you are not working, you shouldn't at this moment have to pay five, $600 a month until you actually are employed where you can pay that back. and after you going to public service -- your debts will be forgiven after 20 years. so we try to make small steps towards creating more sort of fairness with -- in light of the economic situation.

that goes to the health care, you know, i mentioned a million additional young people are now insured because of the law being passed, the affordable care act. those are folks that need health care and have health care, but wouldn't ordinarily have access to that if it weren't for that was. so you know, we are going out this from a multifaceted way, doing what we can through the executive orders and also noting a part of the president broader agenda of strengthening this country going forward. >> i actually wanted to ask along those lines again for you, ronnie. you know, the election is coming out. young people are very energized for 2008 but there seems to be discontent among people. why don't you think that the things you've outlined -- why

don't you think young people really -- that doesn't seem to reach their consciousness of sorts. why do you think that is? >> well, i think it's a question that a lot of folks wrestle with. you know, i think the folks in this room can certainly talk about the accomplishments of this administration. it's just a matter of communicating not and that's something we can certainly do a better job of. when it comes to income-based payment, in fact it is a program that existed for a while that very few people know about. that is responsibility for the federal government to make sure that folks are eligible for these programs that exist are aware of them. so do the office of public engagement talk about our strategies to do an end around the media who may not be getting our message across and the public engagement is because the office of public liaison and it was started by president richard nixon.

primarily a political office, he plays with the eyepiece, business leaders, elected officials had a chance to interact with the white house and administration even president obama was elected in january 2009 it was rebranded to the public engagement to create the same opportunities that others had to enjoy to the general public. so we convene as we're talking about earlier, a series of events and meetings here at the white house to bring opinion leaders, community leaders from virtually every end is reinitiate to the white house. not only to be informed of things this president and white house is working on and has accomplished and continues to work on, but also to be informed ourselves of the issues that are most important and created your dialogue between the american people and this administration in the same spirit of what the president believes in an acceptable unresponsive government. it is in the spirit of that

intent that we are doing our best to sort of infiltrate different communities and make sure they know they've got a seat at the table and they want to know at this president is doing on their behalf, what to do on issues we all care about that there is an open door for us and for them to have that kind of discussion. but to talk about why there's this, as you say, discontent around young people, we are as the story says in report shows, pretty hard hit by the economy. and i think that is something we're all very concerned about. i think when it comes to the policies that this president is pushing for it, it is just a matter of us making sure folks know we are continuing to work on the behalf and adjusting issues as we can. but no one is satisfied with the unemployment numbers. it's unacceptably high across the board especially for young

people, but we are enormously. >> so one of the big questions that emerges from the report is one of action. what young people do to influence political process. so eddie, i know you work on these issues. what recommendations have you developed here? >> yeah, i think before going off about ronnie just said about what the administration is doing to work with young people on the issues they care about the most, i think there also has to be a point made about the role that organizations play. organizations like campus progress coming under decibel, other youth organizations at the national and local levels. the role they play in developing leaders and why that is so important for the future of young people in politics i think. so my biggest point to that would be the organizations to have a responsibility to provide young people with the skills they need to learn about politics and i think in general

there's a lot of excitement and energy become people have right now getting involved especially right now with all the occupied staff. you see all these young face is really starting to come out and challenge a lot of issues that they are coming up against that are highlighted in this report. and i think on our end organization is campus progress in other youth organizations have to be very aware of what those needs are, of what the frustrations that young people have with education, the economy, immigration. i work on immigration issues at campus progress or undocumented people all the time to advance local policies. and so i think a lot of it comes down to programming. organizations need to be very aware of who they are developing, that their programs are aired toward, what skills are they gaining? is a putting them in experiences where they are working -- where they are interning at the office

of a legislator are they getting experience doing community organizing? today getting experienced in policy where? i think that excitement is there and it's a pipeline for leadership development but still i think needs to be further developed and not the sort of the row on top of what the administration does for young people. in a lot of ways that's why young people are so frustrated. there's a lot of work cassation that are not like really taking advantage of the energy that exists right now in the youth space to develop the talents and skills in their leadership of young people being most disenfranchised and most deeply affect tape by the economy, by the high cost of education, by the fact that congress can't seem to get it stuck together. it just seems like nothing is happening. and so really being aware of who

your constituents are, having programming developing their skills in setting them up for future opportunities to get involved in local politics on a national politics and taking a chance and young people that are being most disenfranchised by some, you know, some of the most cuts to education, the unemployment rate, using, you know, really taking advantage of the opportunity to develop their skills as leaders because these are going to be people that are leaving the country. >> i think it's one of the hardest things about doing what i do that creates a huge challenge, but also a tremendous opportunity that there isn't an aarp version for young people. there isn't this huge coalition for a huge organization that sole intent is to help protect the issues and programs geared towards young people. and i think that creates a space

for campus progress coming young invincible is to really fill that space, to become that is the group. but that is challenging of course. and to get both the non-campus youth in the folks for most of this generation not college to have them be a part of this process and to arm them with the tools of civic engagement that is beyond bitterly and figuratively checking the box on election day. it's about citizenship. it is about the part of the process. it talks about we don't market democracy very well. when the harry potter movie comes out, what it comes out in theaters, where to go, how much it's going to cost you, what time to be there. but when it comes to a zoning meeting, whether or not there is a strip club that will open up a box from your home, where is

that information? how do you find that out? so it is incumbent upon all of us do a better job informing the public and arming them with the tools once they are aware of how to be involved in what to do once you are involved. >> actually to add something about the question of democracy for young people, i know it's something a lot of people in this town have been aware of, but i think we actually go further than not marking democracy and not in that there is a real war in this country going on in terms of people who have a vested interest in suppressing the vote, particularly in targeted ways. 2008 was a watershed year for participation among you people and people of color who are particularly people of color will be sort of the rising american alike or it. ..

and it creates costs and inconvenience, making it that much harder for people to exercise their right to vote. >> on that note, actually as the economic situations for much americans becomes more precarious there seems to be this reaction or backlash against programs to expand opportunities for younger people. this also seems to coincide with the fact that young

americans are, you know, overwhelmingly, majority minority demographic. it is very, very diverse. and so to what extent can progress serves use the tool of civic engagement in the political process to beat back this zero sum view of the world which is, we can see now very much in vogue, watch the gop political debate, presidential debate these are people fighting against the changing tide? >> young adults and progressives have a tremendous opportunity to capitalize on some of the debates happening in the upcoming election to really push the kind of change that can change the country and i think, we see that already with "occupy wall street" movement where it is actually shifting the debate to focus on issues like jobs

and the student debt crisis. so absolutely there is this, there will be this opportunity. young people need to be engaged. one thing that is a responsibility for young people is to put forth the sort of specific solutions that, you know, how are we going to create more jobs for young people? how are we going to make college more affordable? i don't think, i think young people need to be a part of that conversation. we saw in the poll, for example, overwhelming support across party lines, regardless of your party affiliation as a young person for creating jobs was the number one priority for young adults. making college more afford arb -- affordable was the number one priority. protecting health care services for low income people was a top priority. protecting social security was one of the top priorities for young aadults. this was across party lines.

so i think there is sort of some broadly-held views among young adults and sort of sharedded sets of principles it is incumbent upon us to define some of the specific policy solutions. for example, take entrepreneurship, we know young people want to start businesses. can you create a student loan relief program that a young person wants to start a business? that is something we've been talking about with members of congress? can you do a better job making sure when a young person goes to a bank to apply for a loan that they're actually able to, that they take into account other factors other than just their credit history because obviously if you just graduated or, if you don't, if you're, you know, 19 years old you don't have a long credit history. that doesn't mean you have a lot of potential to start a viable business. you know, i think if you look at areas, higher education. i think we're talking about

pell grants and once again pell grants are on the chopping block and that would be you know, an absolute embarassment if we cut pell grants at a time when we know that we desperately need to educate more young adults. but at the same time, we need that bigger comprehensive solution for addressing the cost of higher education. and again, there are ideas that are floating out there. it is time for young people to really push them. whether it is, better access to information that, about, you know, what you actually get out of going to college. or, whether it's a race to the top type model for higher education that actually promotes colleges that use innovative techniques to costs down or increase completion rates. the ideas out there in 2012 is this opportunity to close that gap between the grassroots that we're seeing the frustration and energy and policymakers in d.c. who

too often don't have any idea what young people are thinking or doing. >> anyone else? >> i think also speaking to the point that i made earlier about the role that organizations play in developing young people and making sure they're a part of the policy conversations. i think that is part of the reason why sometimes we don't see, or, why there are sometimes like we don't see, we don't see young people coming out for, you know, other, to, for other moments but i think that we have to be more cognizant about who we're developing if we know that young people of color are being the most disenfranchised from, you know, from the political process or if they're being most affected by cuts to higher education or a lock of opportunity for jobs, these are the young people that i think we need to be doing the most outreach too. these are people that need to develop through organizations, providing skills to be a better

organizers, to, how to better understand the local political system, things like that i think. >> yeah, just to add something on your question, jamelle, i think we have been seeing a major question of political philosophy being debated in this country. it is sort of a question, is, do i care the most about individual freedom, freedom as defined freedom from intrusion and, governments, particularly by the government, or do i find, is my animating principle for public life a more collective view, a view we all do better when we all do better? in fact if we have the means to create better outcomes and opportunities for people, we should all, you know, support them and sacrifice a little, each one of us for a better outcome for the public. i think the very idea of the public has actually been fraught and gets more

fraught, this is sort of basic social science. it gets more fraught when the community that is, being represented in, whatever electoral body becomes more diverse, it becomes harder. we are in amazing huge country geographically, over 300 million people. we are the most diverse nation of our size on earth. and we are in fact a really, beautiful experiment in a multiracial democracy. no other country has taken that onto the extent that we have. so i think when you look at sort of the willingness to do big investments in mobility, like the g.i. bill or the incredible expansion of homeownership that happened in the 1950s to create what was the first, you know, sort of resoundingly middle class in the nation, there were racial aspects to that kept certain people out of that social contract. and as they were sort of more signatories to that contract in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s i think we

haven't been deliberate enough about the conversation we need to have in order to make sure racial anxieties which are natural to have, everyone has unconsciously, all races and background, that that doesn't stop our desire to do the kind of investments and shared sacrifices that insure our nation's future is as bright as our past. so i think young people particularly, there was a report from the center for american progress, oh gosh, like five years ago maybe now called the progressive generation that looked at existing polling data. it wasn't the new poll that we have but existing polling dating about their attitudes, their public attitudes. young people are actually more oriented toward public solutions. more willing to pay higher taxes for higher services, degrees of service from the government than any generation since the depression generation. i think a lot of that has to do with the period of time we've grown up in where we really gotten the message

from certain sectors of our political sphere that you're on your own and that you're on your own for, you know, credit cards. there is not going to be any regulation of that. you're on your own for higher ed, for child care, all these things. in fact there is a backlash from young people saying you know what? actually we would like to have a society where people took care of each other a little more and leveled the playing field of opportunity. >> why hasn't that manifested itself in our politics? you know, we, the end of last two years, early to last year there has been this relentless push against sort of an idea of a collective public? is it because, is it a question of organization? people are just not organized enough? is it a question of which young people are organized? i feel like very easy for someone to dismiss college students, they're just college students. if it were, you know, late 20 somethings organizing for better wages and better jobs would we see a difference? >> i mean i think one of the

challenges is sort of short-term versus long-term problem. so we know that, you know, as heather was saying this is one of the most diverse generations in our history. it is one of the most tech-savvy, best educated, most tolerant, most civic-minded generations. this is a generation with tremendous opportunity, and it is struggling economically and i think sometimes when our policy-makers look at sort of range of problems right now, they're thinking oh, we have to solve the problem that is affecting us right now and this is the debate that is happening in congress right now. when the reality is, if we want to move the country ahead, if we want the country to succeed, we need to be thinking about we've got this generation with tremendous potential. how do we make it possible for them to succeed? i think sometimes that longer, longer-term debate guests lost, sort of in the shuffle we have, you know, this very short-term focus.

and that's partly young, again it is young adults responsibility to bring that sort of longer-term perspective. we all know we need to improve the economy and make the country more competitive. what better way than investing in young people? that argument doesn't get made enough i think. >> ronnie. >> interesting moment for our generation. you know, i think, the challenges are very steep but also i think, again, it is amazing opportunity for us. i think this is the generation that needs to assert itself and ascertificate ourselves on the political process. this is a still a country that believes in access to quality education. this is a country that believes health care something that folks should have the opportunity to have. clean air, clean water. these are things that we believe as a generation is good for this country.

that, there should be a job for everyone who wants one. are we a country that believes in those things? is this a generation that believes in those things? my feeling is that, yes, this is a generation for all the reasons that has been stated has those values in a way that previous generations haven't had in numbers and, i think, it is incumbent upon ourselves to really assert ourselves, not ask for an invitation to be a part of the discussion. that is simply not going to happen. it hasn't happened i think to your point why the discussion hasn't been around how this affects young people. i think, you know, i think it is our time to emerge as the force to be reckoned with with both in every iteration. i think when you look at the folks who are doing something in those communities, maybe they're not participating politically but it doesn't mean they're not making a difference in their own communities some way, whether starting their own nonprofit, or starting their own companies.

any other ways they're improving their block, their city, their state, their country, those things are happening. i think it is also important for us to inform the public and inform our generation, that that is, that is what change looks like but there is also a political part of it, a civic engagement part of it we should also leverage. >> so, heather, you mentioned earlier that part of, sort of the attempt to keep young, the young americans agenda involved, restricting voter rights and voter i.d. laws and what not. what the report details i found interesting to the extent in addition there is photo i.d. laws but there is large population of young americans who are in prison or who are ex-convicts and, you know, once they're out of prison their opportunities economically, politically, they're nil. there is very little out there for them.

to what degree can we, as a generation, as a country really fix this problem? if left unattended, it can really be a huge set back to our economic and political progress? >> absolutely. i mean i think as with all of these trend it is really important to look at the policy levers that created them at various points in our history. so around the same time that this generation was being born, our sentencing and drug policies changed dramatically in this country. '84, '85, and '86 there were changes in our laws that created much more mandatory minimum sentencing, and really have the effect of increasing by almost double the average prison term for nonviolent drug offenders to where nonviolent drug offenders are the majority of people in federal prisons now which is sort of unthinkable thing 30 years ago. so that this generation, in

particularly the generation who, sorry, the subset of the population that came of age in inner-cities that had been experiencing the industrial age, excuse me the, industrialization also because of trends we talked about with good manufacturing jobs in cities going overseas and sort of economic collapse that happened in so many inner cities where the drug economy sort of took its place, we're seeing an incredible explosion in particularly young men of color but also young women, young white women, being caught up in the drug trade, and having, as you said, an incredible even if it is a an eight-month sentence the sentence acts for the rest of their lives in terms of discrimination with people with criminal records in employment. the lack of sort of supports for reentry coming home. i know the white house has

an initiative on. but also, i mean i think if we're looking at the reforms we need to do, there was a great move to decrease the crack, powder, cocaine disparity which was racially disproportionate, racially discriminatory law changed recently under president obama and some sentencing reforms from the courts. but we can also do things make sure people who come out of prison have the right to vote which they don't in many states. and change the laws around eligibility for federal student loans and student aid. because in fact, if you have a criminal offense, a drug offense or federal offense, sorry, you're not eligible for federal student loans and programs. and that is something that is absolutely counter to the idea of getting a second chance and having young people become full contributing members to their society. one last reform i think we could certainly do, this would affect the entire

generation but i think we must really believe we need a large-scale, public jobs program that is temporary that directly puts people back to work. i think of the example of, you know, the young people basically built the appalachian trail during the great depression. it has fallen into disrepair. it would be a generationally transformative experience to have young people from all walks of life together working on public jobs in their communities. not just the appalachian trail, hanging solar panels on roofs, taking care of children in communities, rebuilding parks. there is so much that needs to be done and so many young people more than willing to serve their country and have the kind of job experience they're not getting right now with unemployment situations. >> one quick thing i will add, first of all the poll absolutely supports what heather just said, the support for broad jobs programs that can put young people to work but i also think that there are sort of

policy areas, sort of low-hanging fruit i think people have neglected, particularly when it comes to young people and jobs. for example, the earned income tax credit is not actually available to young people under 25, young single workers under 25. why that is? there is really no good explanation. it's a program designed to help low-income working people but for some reason it's not provided to young adults. the unemployment insurance system, many young people, because of the types of jobs they have, don't qualify for unemployment insurance. so these are reforms that i think folks don't always pay a lot of attention to but they're out there and, we could make these fixes, you know, these are reasonable and realistic fixes that could happen relatively quickly that would actually have a huge impact on young adults and particularly low-income young adults.

the one other thing i wanted to add is, a population that we haven't talked about is young veterans. young veterans have tremendously high unemployment rates. these are young people who are serving the country who, are often, leaders in their own right and then come back and struggle to find jobs. one, very positive thing that we have done is the new g.i. bill which helps young veterans get a better education and to afford it. i personally know young veterans taking advantage of that provision. i think that's a good example how we identified a problem and found policy solutions that can actually fix it. >> among the problems, this sort of stems from what heather was saying, among undocumented immigrants, very few young, undocumented immigrants have college degrees. i think in the report is like 76,000. a very tiny number.

so what, and this, question for you i guess, eddie, what can we do to expand higher education among undocumented communities and help these people afford education? a lot of states have provision which charge undocumented immigrants for documentation because they can't prove citizenship. >> a policy issue campus progress works on is passing the federal dream act. the dream act is legislation, a long time supported by both parties but it is a piece of legislation would create pathway tore undocumented youth living in the united states. it is a bill that would address the fact that 65,000 students every year are graduating from high schools that, and they have to go through, you know, unfortunately don't get to go to college and apply for

grants that students with social security numbers would have. they have, a series of challenges that they face when they are applying for school. some states, some states do offer in-state tuition which means they get to pay, they get to pay the same rate that other students pay. i think in general that is something that we could, that states could do. there is lot of students right now working in states to pass in-state tuition bills to make sure students are paying, to, that they're paying the same rate as their, you know, as their fellow u.s. citizens. but i think in general there is a lot of things that the administration could do as well to protect students right now currently being, they're currently in deportation proceedings. they're being, they are in states passing anti-immigrant legislation

which targets not just immigrants, not undocumented immigrants but communities of color at large. those are a few things that i think we could do to address the plight of undocumented youth in college. >> ronnie, is the administration working on anything in particular with regard to undocumented immigrants? >> president obama said this, the d.r.e.a.m. act is something he feels very bad didn't get as far as he would like. it has been something that both republicans, democrats supported for a long time and, you know, i just think that it's something that everyone still believes very deeply in and something that we're working our hardest to, kind of bring back. i think, you know, it's, being in government now is interesting for me because it is about, sort of, there is an order to all this stuff and complete this order to things but, you know, i think there are

meaningful reforms that ought to be implemented. we're working our best to make sure we can implements once we can. >> one of the things briefly mentioned but i would like to go into more detail about is, things relating to families. young people, for obvious reasons, are usually the ones starting families and there isn't seems to be much support for that. sure there is deductions in the tax code for having children and what not but the cost of child care is very high. often times families have to have two jobs to get by. what kind of recommendations does demos have as far as improving the situation for young families and people who want to start families? >> absolutely. i really believe that the lack of a sort of coordinated focus on supporting families and what is supposed to be a country with a strong family values is one of the great sort of

under, you know, undermobilized issues in this country given how many people it affects which is essentially everyone, whether you, as a parent or a child or someone in a community with many children who are being underinvested in. so, we are, the united states, essentially the only industrialized nation without some form of guaranteed paid leave for an event that happens, in some way or another to everyone. which you get very sick or you have a family or you adopt or have a child. given the incredible amount of financial resources that this country actually has, that's a crying shame. we can create a form of universal paid maternity, paternity family and sick leave in this country. right now we have the family and medical leave act which leaves about half of the people uncovered because of the size of the employer that they work for, the fact that they're part time or

they can't access it meaningfully because it is unpaid. basically means your employer can't fire you for taking time off but that if you don't have a way to make ends meet during that period of time, you're out of luck. so, we can create, demos proposed an american family trust that would be paid for by premiums from employers and employees to guarantee paid leave for all workers. we also need to have a essentially, a universal system of early childhood education and care. we know the first three years of life are essential to brain development, to the kind of success and outcomes that we all want to see our young americans having but we simply, deeply underinvest in this area. as jamelle mentioned there is a tax credit for early child care but that is totally insufficient to the cost. there is head start and early head start which are great programs with

incredible outcomes but that there are wait lists for even among the very few families who are actually eligible for them. that, basically, nearly universal civil of improving child care for most americans would be about $88 billion a year. which is not a small sum but also not a huge sum. we know the economic benefits are about $17 for every dollar invested. this is the kind of public response to a nearly universal problem of what to do because most families have two working parents if they're lucky. that is simply been off the table because of an idealogical conversation about the role of government, about regulations on business, that i think it is very clear that for our generation, which is the first to sort of really come in with two-earner household as the paradigm, we're going to have to struggle with and

we'll have to demand a public solution to this problem keeping families up at night. >> [inaudible]. if i remember correctly in 2007 and 2008 i want to say both barack obama and hillary clinton and john kerry had part of their platforms. hillary clinton touted her universal k program. so what happened it seems to have dropped off the radar for conversation. conservatives are not demonizing it. >> i would say the priority has been, the economy as we stand right now. think about, at the end of the year you'll have troops from iraq all coming home. think about what the political discussion, we were having in 2006, 2007, 2008, was exactly this. this was the issue. and now it doesn't sort of

seem, it doesn't resonate as much as you think it would if you asked someone in 2007 how significant would the end of the iraq war be? i would say hugely significant. that is just sort of the time we find ourselves in. and it's very difficult, circumstances that when folks you know, are struggling to find jobs and that extending benefits, they are the first things people want to cut in this country and there are things we need to protect that are long-term investments in this country. . .

>> pell grants are important investments that are, basically, the fight is to maintain the status quo on them and not cut them, whereas when we lay out what's going on with this generation and the kinds of policy recommendations it would take to insure there is a future middle class in this country, it all, basically, requires an expansion of our federal investments in the american country and in our country and in your future. so that sort of is overlaying the conversation that we need to be in an austerity moment, 2010 be the high water mark for federal investments in our country is sort of a dampener on all these conversations. and until we can get out of that frame, i think occupy wall street has helped shift the conversation in the media and,

certainly, the temperature in washington. but until we can really get out of that and have a lot more support for what will be, have to be higher taxes, higher investments and, you know, higher government spending, um, we won't be able to have the kind of country that we sort of all take for granted is what makes this country so great. >> a lot of these conversations take place on the federal level. um, and there isn't, i don't think there's enough, actually, attention paid to the state and local level, and that's how most people in government sort of, the state governments have an enormous impact on what's going on on everyone's everyday life. and this is for you, eddie, what kind of activism do you think might be effective at the state level for these policies? there's a lot of state lawmakers can do to improve the situation. >> uh-huh. yeah. i think, i mean, it depends on, it definitely depends on the policy area. i get to work with young people, like i said earlier, on

immigration policy issues at the local level, so i work with young people at universities that are looking to have policies that facilitate the process for young people to, like, apply for grants that the university offers like private grants, or they're working on state-based policy to improve access to undocumented youth at the state level so that they're able to apply for state-based financial aid. so the california dream act, for example, was one of those, was one of those legislations. it opened up, um, access to higher education in a sense, um, by opening state-based aid to undocumented youth, and that took a long time. young people were organizing around this issue for a very long time recognizing at the federal level there was very little action taking place at the federal level. so i think dreamers and undocumented youth are a great example of folks that recognize that at the national level sometimes the political climate, the political will is not there to advance meaningful policy, and so they're now going to the local level, to the state level

to, um, build power, to develop organizing skills, to develop policy analysis skills to pass meaningful legislation, to build local power around these issues which a lot of times comes down to education, comes down to building allies with folks that have, um, access to different resources that could further their campaign. um, to really identify solutions that are coming from, um, the young folks that are most disenfranchised by the policy to advance it and actually win. and this is, actually, a great case study of, um, one of those instances where, like i said before, folks recognize that at the federal level, unspecific issues, we're not seeing a lot of action, a lot of meaningful action. and so, um, so california, for example, was one of those states that after, you know, after we saw what happened in 2010, we were able to take that energy and turn it into building local and state power. maryland did the same thing, and now there's a lot of other -- there are a number of other states that are looking to pass

in-state bills to improve access to higher education for undocumented youth, specifically folking on the high cost of education. >> and i think one clear example where young adults, young people have a tremendous opportunity is overinvestment in public universities, colleges. if you look at what the main drivers of the increase cost of higher education, it's the dramatic cuts and lack of investment in higher education. so, you know, the cost of higher education, as heather mentioned, for a public university has tripled since 1980. and at this point it's going up significantly faster than inflation. it's going up faster than health care costs. and yet, you know, in health care, for example, we were talking about we need to, you know, reduce the growth. well, in a state level you're talking about states that are cutting their support for their colleges and universities by 8%,

9%. so it really should not surprise anyone that tuition is then, also, increasing substantially. you know, so young people, i think, absolutely have a role to play at the state level when it comes to pushing back against those cuts, insuring that, you know, their state universities -- many of which are extremely popular regardless of whether it's a red state or a blue state -- has the support it needs and, actually, is providing access to the widest group of young adults in that state. >> i think at this point we want to open up the panel to questions from the audience. um, so someone will be around with a microphone. um, you in the red. >> first of all, i want to say thank you very, very much for this panel. um, i came really depressed, and you have given me a great deal

of hope. i'm judy leer, and i'm with the gray panthers. and our byline is age and youth and action. so i want you to know that there are older people, people who have gray hair like me, who really, really support what you are doing, what we are all doing. because these are issues that effect all of us. and my question would be to every one of you. how can we work together? because it's really important. you talked about fairness, and we want it to be fair. >> i mean, i can give one quick example where i've seen it very successfully work, which is on health care. so, for example, the provision that lets you stay in your parents' plan to 26, obviously, that's one of the most popular provisions of the health care law. what we found when we were, you know, doing education work around it that it was actually just as popular among seniors

and parents because of the impact that it could have on their children and grandchildren. so, for example, we did a tele-town hall with aarp where they called their members in california, and we had about 10,000 people on the call just to have a conversation about the rules around this new provision and how it could impact your family. so i think there's any opportunity that we can find to have these joint education opportunities, and so often it's about educating people about what's actually in the health care law or what are some of our policy ideas that we're throwing out there. i think that's an opportunity we should take. and to the extent that youth groups and senior-oriented groups can work together, i think that's amazing. >> i was going to make the same example. i think what's important for us and something that we work hard at at the white house is to, you know, instead of siloing these issues as a priority for seniors or a priority for young americans, try to sort of create

national priorities. these are things that all of us care about. so when you talk to folks in your community about -- and they're asking you what do you care about, well, i care about the things that are affecting my community, and they include the following. it's not just i want to make sure that i have, i have a job, you know, i'm a 28-year-old young man, i want a job. i want there to be jobs available for everyone in my community. education. it's not just about maying my own -- paying my own student loan, it's about my little sister or brother getting a chance to go to school. you know, clean air and clean water not just for my neighborhood, i want it for everyone. i want my grandparents to have access to health care and access to affordable prescription drugs. these are things that we all care about, and i think this is exactly the kind of, i think, alliances that haven't existed traditionally. a lot of these issues have been siloed between the environmental groups or the education groups,

etc., that there needs to be some synergies that are coaxed out in order to sort of leverage all of our, you know, collective voices and our power together. >> um, my name is adrian that, talk radio news. i had a couple questions. you were talking about the health care bill and how it effects youth and how, you know, so many young people now can stay on their parents' insurance. in the political debate, in the presidential debates for 2012, that's one of the big things, repeal health care. what is that going to mean for youth, and what are your organizations doing to inspire youth to fight against that? and to, also, immigration in the presidential debate, um, what role is that going to have? rick perry, his downfall started when he supported the texas

dream act. how do you see that? >> um, so repealing health care, the health care law would have a tremendous negative impact on young adults. obviously, we've heard about the one million young adults who have gained health insurance under the new law. but what many people don't realize are some of the gains that are just, just down the road for young adults. so there's about 20 million uninsured young adults. over 8 million of them would be covered under the medicaid expansion under the health care law. right now in most states if you are a childless young adult, you can't qualify for medicaid even if you are, you know, under the poverty line. um, so this by 2014, that's going to be expanded, so like i said, about 8 million could qualify. and you have another about 10 million that could qualify for subsidies in the exchange, so you're talking about, you know, over 15 million young adults who would gain, potentially gain health insurance in 2014 if

health care law, you know, is allowed to continue and to be fully implemented. so going backwards is, you know, obviously, i think exactly the wrong move. and, but it's an education challenge. so we focus quite a bit, and we're going to be doing some work this spring before graduation time, we're going to be doing more work in the fall to educate young people about what the health care law actually means for them. because i think a lot of people don't quite understand that. and then, you know, once you have the education, i think then you're prepared to sort of become an advocate to tell your story, to explain, yes, i'm a young person, but health care really does matter to my life. and we've found that when those stories are told, it can be quite powerful and change the political debate. >> eddie, take immigration. >> yes. as far as immigration and the role it's going to play, i think, in 2012 is going to be very much dependent on, um, on how the administration continues

to deal with the undocumented population in the united states currently. so there are 11 undocumented -- there are 11 million undocumented people living in the united states. in august the administration announced a joint committee between the department of justice and the department of homeland security to review cases that are currently, um, severely backlogged that involve folks that are pretty much going to be -- that are in the process of being deported or in the process of being removed from the country. and many of those folks are young people, young people that would qualify for the dream act that would have benefited from the dream act had it passed in the last congress. so i think to sort of add to your point, i think that young people are very much feeling the impacts of some of the harmful deportation policies that the administration has adopted, and i think that, um, it's especially hurtful because many of those folks turned out in

2008 to, um, to get this president elected. and so i think a lot of it is going to come from how this particular policy is going to be implemented over, i think, the next few months to make sure that folks that are not, um, high priority for removal from the united states, um, to see, you know, if their cases do end up getting dropped and there's a way for them to apply for a work authorization or something. then i think that's where it's going to be at, where the energy's going to come from. >> anyone else? >> um, the middle -- yeah. >> michael. it's been a common point of panel that issues affecting young americans are kind of put on the back burner politically. my question is, in the opinion of this panel what is the

biggest obstacle to making those issues a national priority, and how should we overcome them? >> okay. i don't know that this is the biggest, but it is certainly a large one. um, in general i think that the issues, the kitchen table issues that, um, are affecting most americans, um, 99% of americans are not on the front burner for congress. um, you know, you're looking at what's on the legislative calendar for this week, it's a bill to make it so that, it's called the raines act, right? which is a bill that would make every regulation that is implementing a law passed by congress whether it's the new dodd-frank law, the health care law, the clean air act, the clean water act, every regulation implementing a law passed by congress would have to go back to -- every major one would have to go back to congress to be passed by two houses and the president. why would you ever want to do

that? it doesn't make any sense from a sort of good government efficiency standpoint. the only reason you would want to do it would be to make sure that some regulated industry who has, you know, a really great relationship with one single senator can filibuster that rule, and we would never see it come to the light of day whether it's on clean air, clean water, credit card reform, any of that. so in terms of what is on the agenda in washington, it is very far from the kind of issues that we're talking about that are, um, the sort of kitchen table, pocketbook issues for people. and i think a lot of that has to do with the corrosive effect of money and organized business power in washington. and that is something that if you look at opinion data, we didn't ask exactly this question in our poll, but that young americans are particularly sort of outraged by this new sort of big money system which is, um, our campaign finance system, frankly, just sort of a gentle form of legalized bribery is really sort of a new thing over the past 30 years.

um, and it's gotten much, much worse over the past, um, few decades. and so for the generation that's come up only in that paradigm where it seems very clear that, you know, the well connected and the wealthiest who are calling the shots in washington, um, there's a lot of outrage about that. and i think that was a lot of the spirit, um, of the desire to change washington that had young people, um, coming out in record numbers. >> i would echo that, that what's being discussed here in washington isn't, um, you know, isn't part of what's really being discussed at kitchen tables across the country. i mean, the president put out a proposal to cut taxes for middle class workers. um, and it didn't get through. i mean, it doesn't make any sense why these elements that we are trying to get through to help ordinary americans every single day, you know, there are long-term investments that ought to be made, but there are things we can do right now to put, you

know, a few hundred extra bucks here, $1500 on average in the pockets of the american people, and yet we're still not able to get, get that done. and these are sort of things, i think, it's frustrating. it's disappointing that there's a process that exists where, um, people can't agree on the things that would help most of us. so many of us. and in a time where there's urgent need for this kind of action. it is, it's very, it's very challenging, and it's very frustrating. but, you know, i think it's important to know that the president and this white house continues to build steam and gatherings across the country, the events and the meetings that we have at the white house to really inform people on what the issues are, the things that the president is going to, is fighting for and putting forth and the ways that they can take that information back home and let folks know that there is,

there are opportunities, and there are folks who are here in d.c. who are trying to fight for them and arm them with that information to help them organize and sort of be engaged. >> i'm jack leibowitz, a retired nih scientist. you mentioned, you know, talked a lot about college students, but most of the people are not college students. most of the youth are not college students. what are the union, and what is your connection -- anybody can answer this -- with the unions. they came down, of course, to support occupy wall street. you would think that for the, for their future survival they would be wanting to get interns into various technical trades and so forth and that they should have some sort of, you know, they use some of their capital for internships for a

lot of the youth. >> i mean, we actually did ask about unionization in the poll, and i encourage you to check it out and see some of the results there. um, but i think generally what we found, i mean n a nutshell is, you're right, the unions have a tremendous opportunity to connect to young adults in a way that, you know, maybe they haven't, they haven't done quite as well over the past few years. the occupy wall street is a perfect example where the unions lent their support to a movement that was, in large part, driven by young people. we've also seen, you know, recently union support on issues like pell grants. but i think, you know, there needs to be this realization that the union members of tomorrow are this generation, and unless we're talking to them -- and i'm not just talking about, you know, currently

unionized young workers, i'm talking about our students, our non-students, our, you know, recent high school graduates -- about what it even means to be in a union and what the value is, i think you lose that opportunity. but i think overall the sort of, the idea as heather was talking about of us taking care of each other and some of those values are very persuasive and powerful to young people and could be used very successfully. >> yeah. just a little bit of context on this union question for young workers. um, we did look at the unionization rates among young workers in the state of young america report, and it's actually dropped in half since 1980. um, that's not just an accident. obviously, one of the major trends over this period of time of sort of a conservative economic, um, policies include deunionization. 1980 was the year that ronald reagan fired 11,000 striking workers, right? air traffic control workers.

so the attack and the sort of organized business response to, um, to union, union drives and organizing the attack on the right to organize is something that has very much had an effect over the exact period of time that we're looking at. um, so it's actually just young workers are less likely to be in a union, obviously, than they were before by half, but then, um, than other workers as well. and that is so important because four -- if you look at a job that is unionized versus not unionized that has the exact same characteristics, workers in the union have about 17% higher wages. that difference shall is even higher for workers of color, so a worker of color in a john that's nonunionized has a much better shot of having a middle class job from the exact same, um, with the exact same task and position as a nonunionized job. so i think that, um, you know,

like all of these issues, um, there are policy responses. we could pass the employee free choice act to make it easier for people who want to join a union to join a union. we have labor laws in this country that could be strengthened, um, but it's all about policy choices, and i think it's very important, and i'm really glad that you raised, we concentrated a lot on it in the report to look at the quality of jobs for workers who don't have a college degree. it shouldn't be, um, a given that if you don't have a college degree, that your job is a permanently low-wage, dead end job with no benefits and no opportunity for advancement. >> i think one thing i would add, and it goes to what we were talking about before, is that, you know, obviously we need a bit of a reset and a period of thinking about, you know, what are our priorities as a country, what do we actually need to move forward and to grow the economy and to be successful.

and, you know, that's what 2012 is going to be all about. it's going to be this opportunity for, you know, for people to have that kind of conversation. and personally, i think this could be the young americans' election. i mean, it's an election where young people really could be at the center of the debate, you know, the future of our country could be at the center of the debate in a different way than it was even in 2008 or 2010. and so i see this tremendous opportunity for young people to really push that conversation. but we have to, you know, we have to seize the moment. we, if we wait, if we aren't, if we don't get out there, if we don't take to the streets like occupy wall street is showing the power of that, and if we don't identify real solutions, i think we could be left to the sidelines again which i think would be a tremendous waste and a lost opportunity.

>> my name is wayne lease, and the only affiliation i have for members of your generation -- i have four members of your generation in my household. heather, you mentioned the voter suppression activities and particularly mentioned that i think you said a third of 18-year-olds do not have photo ids? i find that mind-boggling. but the question i have is because governments typically charge to issue those, how is that not, then, an illegal poll tax? >> um, so the states where it has passed, where voter id has passed, so 31 states, as i said, in 2010 with the new conservative, um, governments that were ushered in in many, many states introduced some sort of disenfranchising bill, whether it's voter id or shortening the amount of time for early voting or making it

harder to do absentee balloting or like in maine, ending their 30-year successful experiment of same-day registration. but only, i think, six or seven states actually passed a voter id bill. and in those states, um, they do have a provision for a free driver's license. take, for example, wisconsin where that was one of the first things that governor scott walker did, um, rushed through a voter id bill. they had a, it's about $40 to get a driver's license or a state-issued id, so they had a voucher if you could prove that you were of certain low income. but as one of the laters things that was done by the exact same administration was to close a number of dmvs due to budget constraints. there's been a lot of investigative reporting sort of tracking people trying to get that free id and how hard it is for, you know, it's not like you walk in, it says here's where you sign up for your voucher. you know, it's just a question,

i mean, this is one of those things where you can do a lot through administrative sort of hurdles to really suppress a vote. it's a question about when those bills were introduced, in my opinion, did they fall into sort of a larger conversation so that everyone saw that, of course, this was an attack on the voting rights and, um, of large numbers of people in our state and that, you know, we care about democracy, and this won't stand. or does it end up being a conversation about, you know, photo id and administrative and all that? i think we need to have a much broader, um, conversation in the country about what kind of democracy we have, um, where we're really saying we want, you know, big money out and people in. and so that includes campaign finance reform and public financing of elections and overturning citizens united. but also really lowering the barriers to, um, to participation. this past week, actually, we celebrated the one millionth voter that has been registered, um, as after we have gone into a state through litigation or, um,

or negotiation, helped urge states actually implement the public agency part of the voter registration bill from 1996 so that when you come in just like at the dmv, you're supposed to have a voter registration card. also when you go into a welfare office to get food stamps or social security and disability, you should be, um, being encouraged to register to vote. so those are the types of things that are really about sort of lessening political inequality which we know is very connected to economic inequality. and there are ways that we can advance that cause as well. >> so i think that is it for the panel. um, thank you to cat for hosting us, thank you for young principles for the report, and thank you to the panelists for coming out. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> newt gingrich is in new york city today. he was scheduled to meet with donald trump on fifth avenue at trump tower, and he'll be holding a news conference at

1:45 p.m. we'll have that lye on our companion -- live on our companion network, c-span3. also on the c-span networks today, the house of representatives will begin legislative work in about half an hour, taking up several bills dealing with national parks and other federal lands. you can watch the live coverage from the house floor on our companion network, c-span. here on c-span2, live at 4:30 p.m. eastern the senate is scheduled to begin debate on four judicial nominations. and again over on c-span3, a hearing on efforts to end malaria deaths in africa, and that's live this afternoon at 3:00 eastern. >> a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care, that's the most expensive single element, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a job-sucking sound going south.

>> ross perot spoke out about trade issues during the 1992 presidential debate. the billionaire businessman made two attempts for the presidency. the first time getting over 19 million votes. more popular votes than any third party candidate in american history. and although he lost, he's had a lasting influence on american politics. he's our final candidate in c-span's 14-week series, "the contenders." live friday at 8 p.m. eastern. to preview other video on ross perot and to see all the programs from our series, go to c-span.org/the contenders. >> the u.s. senate convenes in about half an hour at 2:00 eastern time. at 4:30 senators will begin debate on four judicial nominations with a vote expected at 5:30. live coverage from the u.s. senate floor as always here on c-span2. in the meantime, we're going to take a look at a house financial services committee hearing on the federal housing administration. the agency insures home

mortgages, and a recent report says that unless the housing market rebounds next year, the fha could need billions of taxpayer dollars to remain solvent. here's some of that hearing, starting with a statement from housing and urban development secretary shaun donovan. >> mr. chairman, this report arrives in a significantly different environment from the one that we faced upon taking office. then our economy was shedding over 800,000 jobs a month, housing prices had fallen for 30 straight months, and foreclosures were surging to record levels month after month. today nearly 13 million homeowners have refinanced their mortgages since april 2009 putting nearly $22 billion a year into the hands of families in our economy. and with recent changes from fhfa, more refinances are on the way. today because we provided responsible families opportunities to stay in their homes, the number of families

falling into foreclosure is down 45% since early 2009, more than 5.3 million mortgage modifications have been started since that time. central to this progress has been the fha which has undertaken the mission that congress set for it after the great depression by taking over one million loss mitigation actions to help families keep their homes and helping 2.25 million first-time home buyers realize the dream of home ownership. 56% of all first-time home buyers in the last two years and 60% of african-american and hispanic home buyers last year alone. and as the actuarial report we discuss today finds, while we have been through the second worst housing downturn in the history of the country, fha -- unlike many other institutions -- retains a positive fund balance, and the current book of business is strong. specifically, the actuarial reports insurance on loans books

since january 2009 posts an estimated net economic value of $18 billion with the new 2012 book of business expected to add $9 billion alone. it reports that although the capital reserve account is $4.7 billion, fha's total reserves stand at $33.7 billion, $400 million more than that in 2010. but the fha's been able to weather this storm thus far to date is no accident. indeed, with the partnership of congress and this committee, we have been able to put in place the most sweeping reforms to credit policy, risk management, lender enforcement and consumer protections in fha history. reforms, as this actuarial report makes clear, that have produced real results. with your help, we've been able to increase premium rates three times under this administration yielding significant added revenue to the fund. we have also put in place a two-step fico floor which required those with credit

scores, low credit scores to contribute a minimum down payment of 10%. only those with stronger credit scores have remained eligible for fha-insured mortgages with the minimum down payment. this approach is based on fha data that clearly shows the success of a borrower depends on a combination of factors that include the loan-to-value but not a loan. the changes we made significantly improved the quality and the performance of fha loans. where nearly half of fha borrowers had scores of below 620 in 2007, today the average score across all borrowers is over 700 for the first time in fha history. for home purchase loans originated in early 2011, early payment default rates are less than one-sixth what they were in early 2008, and for streamlined refinance loans, they're one-well ofth of what they were at the peak before president obama took office. we've taken other steps as well

including critical enhancements to lender enforcement, withdrawing the approval of over 1600 lenders to participate in fha programs, more than four times the number during the entire tenure of the previous administration. with these actions we're sending lenders a very clear message that if you don't operate ethically or transparently, we won't do business with you, and we will not hesitate to act. mr. chairman, the collective impact of these efforts cannot with overstated -- cannot be overstated. indeed, if it were not for these reforms, fha would be seriously in the red today. and on the strength of these new books of business, not only does the actuarial report find the fund retains positive capital today, it projects that fha should be able to rebuild reserves to the congressionally-mandated 2% threshold quickly once markets across the country exhibit sustained growth. indeed, using base-case projections based on moody's

forecasts, the actuary expects capital reserves to reach 2% again in 2014, sooner than was projected just last year. of course, for all this progress very serious challenges remain. like any other organization in the housing finance sector, the actuary finds that fha's finances are very closely tied to home prices which have been broadly stable since we took office, but weaker than expected in 2011. in particular, it finds fha's older books of business underwritten during the bubble years of 2000 to 2008 will continue to produce substantial losses of more than $26 billion. it reports as many as half of highest-risk loans insured at the peak of the housing bubble will ultimately result in a loss for the fha, with one out of every four loans insured in 2007 resulting in an insurance claim, and losses of close to $10 billion for the 2008 book of business alone. that's why we continue to pursue

additional reforms that protect the taxpayer, support the housing market and meet the fha's historic mission of helping underserved borrowers. in the very near future, we expect to publish an indemnification rule to hold lenders and fha's lender insurance program responsible for loans that were improperly originated or in which fraud or misrepresentation were involved. in addition, we'll soon publish a rule that reduces allowable seller concessions to protect the mmi fund from risks associated with appraisal values. now that we have these actuarial results, we are carefully examining a range of steps to further strengthen the fund, including enhancements to our loss mitigation protocols and whether additional premiums are necessary. we expect to announce these next steps in our proposed fy-2013 budget and will work with congress as we have throughout. we must also continue to shrink government's footprint. a key goal of the administration's white paper on the future of housing finance, and a process that i'm pleased

to report has already begun at fha through our premium increases and underwriting changes. indeed, while fha's volume grew dramatically during this crisis, in 2011fha loan volume was down 34% from its peak in 2009. fha's current market share of mortgages is 14% and declining for the first time since 2006. during these uncertain times as we carefully manage the balance between helping the market recover and working to bring private capital back, this represents important progress. and so, mr. chairman, while none of us can predict what the future will hold, what we do know is that these new loans we're making are the strongest in fha history. but given the continuing fragility of the market, we must continue to be vigilant and prepared to take additional steps to protect the taxpayer. as it has been since the outset of this administration, that remains our goal today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

mr. secretary, the obama administration's white paper, and you referred, i think, to that without naming it, reforming americans' housing finance market that was released in february indicated that the goal to encourage the return of private capital and reduce the risk to the american taxpayer, um, but looking at the fy-2011 actuarial report from fha it assumes that the fha market share, it assumes a market share of no less than 20% all the way to fy-2018. um, do you know why this is? and won't that elevated level of fha participation in the housing finance market discourage the return of private capital to the housing financial sector? >> mr. chairman, you're exactly

right. the report laid out a series of steps not just for fha, but for fannie mae and freddie mac as well to shrink their market share. the most critical steps there, um, were to increase the cost of fha insurance and the guarantees that fannie mae and freddie mac provide to encourage more private capital to come in, and we've begun down that path. as you know, with authority granted by this committee we've raised premiums three times. they now stand at the highest level in fha history. and, in fact, it's begun to have results. as i just mentioned, we've seen our market share shrink from about 17% last year to 14% this year. and the latest quarter shows it continuing to shrink. in addition, we proposed in the president's proposal for the budget compromise that was reached this summer to increase

premiums for fannie mae and freddie mac. i know that you've supported that as well, and that is a step that we are working with fhfa on. in addition, and we continue to propose and we continue to believe that loan limits not just for the gses which have come down, but for fha need to come down and return to their more historic levels so that we can insure that private capital does return. so we have begun on those steps, but we will continue to take steps going forward to make sure that we do everything we can to bring private capital back to the market. >> thank you. you know, the fy-2012 funding bill that the president just signed and, of course, the congress passed, it reinstated the high loan limits for fha. and, of course, i did not support that. and i, i don't think the president or the administration supported that.

but i'd like your comment on that. and second, you know, it didn't include fannie and freddie. so my real concern or another concern i have is what effect will that have to business flowing to fha from fannie and freddie? and just get your comment on that. >> um, we stated publicly in the white paper that you've referenced that we believed that the loan limits should have been allowed to expire, and i think if you look at my public statements consistently, um, as i've said today, we continue to believe that the loan limits must come down -- >> yeah, and i do can acknowledge that. >> and i do think you point out something important which is that the effect of having for the first time in history higher loan limits on fha compared to

fannie mae and freddie mac could produce the results that would have more business come to fha than we've expected particularly on the purchase side. we will need to see what happens there, and part of what we are looking at in terms of future steps is how we should price premiums and other policies. and i mentioned in my testimony that we expect in our budget proposal for 2013 to have specific proposals about how we move forward with those loans. >> all right, thank you. and i do think that could cause problems, and i think you agree, so -- >> mr. chairman, if i just could, one important point i want to make there, though, is that those high balance loans, the loans above our old loan limits represent about 2-3% of our loan volume in terms of dollars and -- i'm sorry, in terms of number of loans and about 6-7% in terms of dollar volume.

and the evidence we have, albeit early evidence, is that those loans are lower risk than other loans that we're making. and so, therefore, i don't think the issue is that those loans pose a significant risk to the taxpayer or the fund. the real issue is about how we encourage private capital to come back while making sure that we continue to support the market through this crisis. >> thank you. i agree. ms. gutierrez. mr. giewz -- gutierrez. >> thank you. secretary donovan, we've seen in the press american banker, banks likely to gain fha relief under foreclosure servicing setment, that the -- settlement, that the fha is potentially playing a role between the servicers and the states' attorney generals. it sounds like the fha might be letting servicers off the hook for breaking fha rules and failing to work with borrowers to keep them in their home by

waiving the fha's right to deny a servicer's claim and enforce a penalty for an improperly-conducted foreclosure. can you comment on this, um, and do you think this kind of settlement would be appropriate? >> congressman, i want to make sure this is absolutely clear. it is exactly the opposite. we began an in-depth investigation of the servicing practices of our larger servicers. we found significant problems with the way that they were handling servicing, specifically their loss mitigation as well as other steps, the robo-signing and other problems that you all have heard so much about. and, um, began discussions with fellow agencies as well as state attorneys general who also found similar problems with the way loans were being handled. and so the discussions that we've been having are about

holding those servicers accountable for those practices. and, first of all, making sure that the taxpayer is compensated and, in fact, one of the things that can help the fha fund to recover to a higher capital level is to recover where not only on servicing, but on origination and other places where mistakes were made, where loans were originated or serviced, um, against fha requirements. as well as to get help to borrowers. so any release that we would provide would be in exchange for significant penalties as well as help to homeowners that were wronged by those practices. that is what we're pursuing. >> and that's why i raised the question, and maybe american bankers just got it wrong. not like they always get it right. i wallet today ask you the question -- i wanted to ask you the question. >> thank you. >> because that is our

responsibility. if a mortgage services a bank, an originator of the loan didn't help the american family stay in the home and did not go through all of the mitigation and didn't or did robo -- didn't do anything. just let it sit out there, then you could simply say, yeah, you can make an insurance claim, am i right? they can make an insurance claim, but if you didn't follow the rules, you can simply deny the claim and then penalize them three times the total cost of the -- >> that is correct. >> are you still committed to carrying that and having that as a powerful tool? when we deal with the mortgage? >> absolutely. >> mortgage servicers? >> absolutely. >> okay. because i think that that's important that we all understand that the insurance is insurance, but you have to follow the rules of the insurance. and we know that they didn't follow the rules in many cases, and that's why we have this

pending litigation across the country. um, i believe that the kind of settlement is, is important because it sends a message that just because you've got a fha-insured loan doesn't mean you're going to get the money. because what we have found, and i don't know if you have any evidence o this, and i'd like to hear your comment, but what i've found in just the normal practice of reviewing is that homes stay out on the street, and the banks do nothing to keep people in the homes. they don't mitigate. they don't -- they simply send you a letter, and then you send them money, and then they're going to foreclose. they don't help anybody. and secondly, they simply leave the homes. in chicago, for example, the city council had to pass legislation against the banks saying, well, if you're just going to have all these abandoned properties out there, we're going to charge you for boarding them up and for keeping them clean, and we're going to

have the fine you. we found that. do you find the same situation throughout the country? >> as i said earlier, congressman, we found significant problems with servicers not following our requirements on loss mitigation. um, and i'm proud to say that fha has been a leader in correcting those and insuring that we help families stay in their homes -- >> and since, and i'm with you. i support you. i think, i think you're at the helm and doing a good job. i just wanted to raise this issue because i wanted to make sure that you were continuing to -- i know what you've done on loss mitigation. i congratulate you, and i thank your staff for keeping american families in their homes. but i also want to send to all of those mortgage servicers out there that you're going to continue to penalize them if they try to submit a claim and they didn't follow the loss mitigation, and they didn't follow the procedures, you're going to deny that claim and try to go after them for three times the amount. thank you so much. >> gentleman's time has expired.

with that, mr. miller from california has five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary donovan, i'm glad to hear that you're holding renders accountable when they don't do their job. they should bear the loss. i'm also, i guess, relieved to hear that my argument that the loan limits of high cost areas are safer loans which you've justified that they are. but there's no doubt we want to get the private sector money back into the marketplace. that's been the goal all along. and the drop in recent conforming loan limits identified by many economists as a test for the private sector to see if they're willing to step forward and fill the void, do you have any evidence that private market is filling the void created by this at this point? >> um, i think there is some evidence that that's beginning to happen. um, certainly there have been in the jumbo loan space there have been some securitizations, some steps forward. mortgage insurers are, um, some

of them at least, coming back into the market more, and i do think that we need to continue to take steps that i talked about before to insure that we encourage it. i think it's clear that we certainly have it returned to -- >> it's not where it needs to be. >> -- a fully healthy market at this point, and that we need to continue to take steps to encourage private investment to come back. >> now, some have made the argument to get everybody out of it on the government side. if private sector was the only game in town in 2007, without a government-backed entity, what would have happened? >> well, i think it's important to recognize that congress established fha to be a countercyclical force. >> yeah. >> and so the fact that our market share grew, um, in the wake of the crisis was not, as some may have suggested today, a plan on behalf of this administration or something that we took affirmative steps -- >> but if you hasn't, what would have happened? >> i think it's clear that had

we not been able to step in and provide liquidity in the market, that the housing crisis would have been deeper, there would have been more significant declines in the home prices, more foreclosures and, frankly, more losses for the taxpayer. >> and the taxpayers own homes last time i checked. >> and to be clear, and this is a critical point in this hearing today, the loans we made from 2000 to 2008 we, the actuary predicts will lose $26 billion for the taxpayer. loans we've made since 2009 will make $18 billion for the taxpayer. so -- >> that offsets it. >> it is very important to recognize that the threat to the fund is from those legacy books of business. and what we need to do is insure that we minimize the losses from those. it is not a problem of the new loans that we're making which are predicted to be profitable even under the most dire

economic circumstances predicted in the various models that the actuary looked at. >> now, if, as some would like to do, ended all government guarantees today, how would that effect the overall u.s. economy, in your opinion? >> i think we've been clear in our white paper which does advocate shrinking the government footprint that we have to do that in a careful, measured way -- >> as a private sector back -- >> so that the private sector can come in and not to expect that that's going to happen overnight. and i think consistently in a range of proposals that we've, that we've seen that is a, something that congress understands and that is generally understood is that this will be a process that will take place over time and not something that we can expect given the depth of the crisis to happen immediately. >> what are the barriers you see as it applies to the private capital rendering the market in the secondary market for home loans today? >> clearly, confidence and a

stronger economic recovery overall is a critical step. that's why the president has been so focused on getting the american jobs act passed. that's why as part of the american jobs act he proposed a project rebuild that would specifically deal with the overhang of foreclosed properties, put 200,000 construction workers back to work fixing up those properties, but also insure that they actually rather than depressing home values in their communities, they help to raise home prices by getting fixed up and being resold. that's a critical step that we can take. a second one i would say is to remove some of the uncertainty that's holding back lending today. and that's another reason why we've been pursuing, um, these discussions around robo-signing and other problems. we have to resolve those and get clear, fair, strong rules of the

road in place that require servicing and other steps to be taken, um, that really make sure that it's clear what the responsibilities of a lender and a servicer are going forward rather than the lack of clarity that we had that led us into the crisis. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> and at this point ms. maloney from new york has five minutes. >> excuse me. thank you. obviously, saving more loans from going into foreclosure is key to reducing losses to the fha insurance fund, and a new york times editorial that, i believe it was this weekend that i read it, stated that there are 14.7 million american homeowner ors underwater on their mortgages. unfortunately, 1.6 million will likely lose their homes to foreclosure, but the editorial

states that there are at least 1.6 million who have had a temporary setback in their lives whether it's a health condition or a loss of a job and that their homes can be saved if a loan modification is done. the key to making this happen is the servicers reaching the borrowers to advise them of their options, particularly loan modifications. and i know from a recent ogr hearing, another committee on which i serve, that the gses are doing a lousy job of borrower contact. fortunately, hud has a regulation book since 1992 requiring servicers to make face-to-face contact with the borrowers after the 90th day of delinquency. and i must say in new york what has been the most helpful is when we have these concerns with the borrowers, with the people

in need, with government services and try to put people face to face to help them stay in their job -- help them stay in their home, and to help the borrowers keep the houses and really to save the american taxpayers money, what more can we do to really enforce that regulation of face-to-face contact, of working to help the people stay in their homes? are you enforcing that regulation? are -- and could you give us some insights into why are the servicers not responding? how come they don't work to help them stay in their homes? we get reports all the time when people do lose their homes that the servicers never even contacted them. they just came in and closed on them. so if you could, do we, should we look at trying to give them an economic incentive -- >> you can see the rest of this hearing at c-span.org. we're going live now to the u.s. senate, gaveling in for general

speeches. at 4:30 p.m. eastern, the senate will take up four judicial nominations, a roll call vote on one of those nominations is scheduled for 5:30.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our father, take our senators this day and make them what they cannot be without your power. enlighten their minds so that they will know what is best for the good of our land. break for them the habits they cannot break. calm for them the worries they cannot still. soothe for them the sorrows no human comfort

can ease. may they always remember that nothing can separate them from your great love. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c.,

december 5, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff bingaman, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, today following leader remarks, if any, the senate will be in morning business until 4:30 today. following that morning business, the senate will be in executive session to consider four united states district judges. at 5:30 today, there will be a roll call vote on confirmation of the ramos nomination.

we hope the rest of the nominations can be confirmed by voice vote. mr. president, last week, my friend, the republican leader, tried to convince us, republicans realized it would be disastrous to raise taxes on the middle class. here on the senate floor, he quoted half a dozen news reports as evidence the senate republicans support an extension of payroll tax cuts for 160 million american workers. i said at that time i was skeptical, skeptical that the republicans really support this tax cut. it turns out i was right. last thursday, republicans shot down democrats' proposal to cut taxes for middle-class americans, supposedly on the grounds it raises taxes on the richest of the rich. mr. president, a few minutes later, republicans all shot down their own proposal, one that they had placed on the senate floor. it was to extend the payroll tax cuts. it was paid for with our own hand-picked reductions in

government spending. well, they shot that down. they only got 19 votes plus the vote of a cosponsor. whatever my friend, senator mcconnell, may say, it's obvious our friends just aren't interested in prevent ago $1,000 tax increase in this nation from taking effect on january 1. democrats will not relent on keeping taxes low for the middle class. today, senator casey will unveil a modified version of the proposed tax cut proposal that he introduced last week. like our previous proposal, this scaled back version would cut taxes for 160 million american workers, including 1.2 million nevadans. this proposal will allow the average family to keep an extra 1,500 $ to spend on necessities next year. it will be fully paid for with a mixture of spending cuts republicans have already agreed

to and a tiny, tiny surtax on the top .2% of american taxpayers. every spending reduction in the proposal was agreed to by a bye cameral group of -- bicameral group of republicans on the super committee, so we know they support these cuts -- or should support these cuts. in an effort to make our proposal more palatable to republicans, we have conceded significantly to cut the tax on income above a million dollars and make it temporary. democrats know how important extending and expanding the payroll cut is to working -- tax cut is to working families. it's also important to our economy. economists of every political persuasion agree. if republicans block this proposal, raising taxes on american families by a thousand dollars next month will have an immediate negative impact on our economy, will halt our -- it will halt very singularly our still-fragile recovery in its tracks and drag us back into a recession. we all know congress can't

afford to play chicken with the economy. that's why democrats are committed to passing this tax cut. republicans need to be prepared to meet us partway. we're offering a serious proposal with meaningful concessions, including spending cuts to which republicans have already agreed. the scaled back temporary tax on the richest americans, a group with an average income of $3 million a year, is also a sincere attempt to get republicans on board to pass what they say they want to do. we know a few of them said publicly that they are open to asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to our economic recovery. i was happy to see those press reports, and we hope we have the courage to vote accordingly, as one republican did last thursday. one republican voted the right way. i repeat, mr. president, this is a serious proposal and republicans should take it seriously. here's why. americans regardless of political affiliation say they

wholeheartedly support democrats' plan to cut taxes for middle-class families. 58% of republicans agree across this country, we should extend, they agree we should extend and expand payroll tax cuts for 160 million american workers. further, americans overwhelmingly support our proposal to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share to help this country thrive. americans from every corner of the country, in every walk of life, agree democrats, republicans, and independents. asked if they support a plan that require people making more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more to ensure this country's economic success, the results were decisive. 75%, 3/4 of americans said yes. wealthy americans agree, two-thirds of people making more than a million a year said they would gladly contribute more. a supermajority of republicans agree, with two-thirds supporting the idea, and even a majority, 52%, of members of the tea party agree.

it seems the only place in the country you can't find a majority of republicans willing to speak up for shared sacrifice are republicans in the united states senate. republicans across the country support our plan and the way it's paid for. republicans in congress dismiss it at their peril. i repeat, republicans dismiss this at their peril. the american people are watching what my republican colleagues will do. mr. president, would the president be so kind as to introduce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved and under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

cane i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under -- mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with and i be recognized to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized without objection. mr. mccain: last week a.o.l. published an interview with an admiral who heads up the joint strike fighter program for the department of defense.

in this interview he offered his concerns about where the joint fight strike fighter program stands today. his judgment and forthrightness are deeply troubling, his concerns which i share and which bring me to the floor this morning. i'd like to introduce for the record a copy of admiral sreupblet's remarks -- vin let's remarks entitled j.s.f. building test was -- quote -- "miscalculation." quotes admiral vinlet, production was slow. i'd like to cite the history of the joint strike fighter program that has taken us where we are today. in a nutshell, the joint strike fighter program has been both a scandal and a tragedy. the j.s.f. program has been in the development phase for ten years over that time it's been

the beneficiary of taxpayer development but we still don't have an air force that provides the navy and marine corps with what they need. in fact to demonstrate the ability of the aircraft has not started. at this point this most advanced phase of flight testing won't begin any sooner than 2015. developing and buying these aircraft and building the facilities to support them was originally supposed to cost $233 billion. according to the april 2001 general accounting office report on the joint strike fighter, these costs are now estimated to be closer to $283 billion.

let me repeat. original cost estimated $233 billion. now estimated to be $383 billion, an increase of some $150 billion of the taxpayers' money. this increase in total development acquisition cost will only get worse when the department announces a new baseline cost estimate which resulted from a second restructuring of the program over the last two years. overall, the schedule for the end of the development phase and the start-up of full rate production has slipped five years since the current baseline was set in 2007 and is now planned for 2018. i'd like to point out during this period of time the manufacturer, lockheed martin,

has continued to make record profits. in fact, they just announced their third quarter profits to be $700 million. here's the manufacturer that was supposed to build an aircraft which was going to cost $233 billion. it's now estimated closer to $383 billion. a $150 billion increase. and we all know now there will be significant cost increases to follow in light of the production manager admiral vinlet's remarks. in 2001, ten years ago, the department of defense told congress that the joint strike fighter would cost about $69 million per aircraft. but according to the general accounting office' report from april, the cost of each f-35 aircraft has now risen to about $133 million per plane,

including the cost of research, development and tefgs -- testing across the program the unit cost goes up to $156 million. in inflation-adjusted dollars, that's about double the original 2001 estimate. unfortunately, we know that the estimate will go up substantially when the pentagon releases its late projections with the cost of restructuring the program factored in and a new baseline cost is established for the program. if these costs of developing and buying the aircraft were not high enough, the pentagon now estimates that operating and sustaining these new aircraft may cost as much as $1 trillion over their planned service life. i think we have reason to believe that this jaw-dropping number could be artificially high and can be reduced, but keep in mind the rule of thumb is that the cost of developing and buying a major weapons

system tends to be about one-third of its total cost. the other two-thirds are in operating and sustaining it. so with the development and procurement costs of the f-35 already approaching $400 billion, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect sustainment costs of about $800 billion over the f-35's life span. that amounts to about $1.2 trillion investment of taxpayer resources which makes the f-35 the most expensive represents program in history. over the nearly ten-year life so far of the program, congress has authorized and appropriated funds for 113 of these weapons systems. but as of today the program has developed 18 aircraft, most of which are being used for flight testing. the first production aircraft intended for training just started to be delivered this

summer, three years late. in july the numbers came in on how much these early production model jets will cost compared to original estimates. that was a shocking $1 billion over the original estimate of about $7 billion. under the cost-plus contracts for these early production aircraft, taxpayers will be on the hook for $771 million to cover their share of this cost overrun for these first 28 aircraft. let me repeat. taxpayers of america now on the hook, $771 million in cost overrun to cover their share for the first 28 aircraft, and lockheed martin will absorb the cost of $283 million. maybe that helps you understand why lockheed martin just in the third quarter of this year has been able to announce a profit of some $700 million.

but this cost of the first 28 is a 15% cost overrun when you total up everybody's share. so for about $8.1 billion, we get 28 aircraft at a cost per aircraft of about $289 million each. just last week we learned that the costs associated with the fourth lot of these early production aircraft may be as high as 10% over that contract's $3.46 billion cost, target cost. that's a $350 million overrun with only 40% of the work completed to date. that tells us that the cost of the program have still not been contained despite two years of very concentrated effort by the pentagon to bring costs under control. knowing that the future of the program hangs in the balance.

that brings -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for an additional ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: this brings us to where we are today, and the context of admiral vinlet's remarks. the pentagon completed an analysis of how much the fifth lot should cost and is negotiating with lockheed martin on who will bear the cost of changes to the design and manufacturing of the aircraft that could result from thousands of hours of flight testing that lie ahead. it is at this exact moment that the excessive overlap between the development and production was originally structured into the program. it's called concurrency. it means that you deliver aircraft to the owners -- in this case the air force -- and at the same time continue testing, something that we warned against over and over and over again as not having worked

but was done in order to have an effort to have some semblance of their schedule being adhered to of delivery of aircraft. lockheed martin doesn't want to bear the risk of new discoveries that may require retrofit or redesign of the aircraft. based on the in-depth studies that the department has conducted to date, admiral vinlet told the publication a.o.l. defense last week that the joint strike fighter program needs to slow down production and deliveries of the aircraft. he explains this was necessary to open up the aircraft and install fixes to numerous structural cracks and -- quote -- "hot spots" that the program has discovered in the plane over the last year or so. he estimated that the work needed to remedy these cracks could add an additional $3.3 billion to $5 -- $.3 million to $5 million per aircraft. this revelation comes on top of the fact that the department

just reduced the latest f-35 purchase, that will be lot 5, by five jets. admiral vinlet concluded that even as the pentagon negotiates with lockheed martin on this new lot of the aircraft under the terms of a fixed price contract, there is much -- quote -- "heavy learning" that remains in the program. here's what admiral venlet said the hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost. most of them were little ones but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at, after you buy the jet the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. i believe it's wise to sort of temper production for awhile until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. and then when we've got most of that known and we've got the

management of the change activity better in hand, then we'll be in a better position to ramp up production. now, mr. president, 2001 was the year that we decided to build this aircraft. so here we are 11 years later, and the manager of the program says "and then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the changed act better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production." i am not making this up. so admiral venlet, who oversees the program for the pentagon is basically saying that even after the program was restructured two years ago by secretary gates, to add $7.3 billion and 33 more months to development, there's still too much concurrency baked into this program. in other words, the overlap between development and

production is still too great to assure taxpayers that they will not have to continue paying for costly redesigns or retro fits due to discoveries made late in production. in that context, ramping up production, even under the program's revised schedule, would be -- would not be a move in the right direction, and i absolutely agree. when the head of the most expensive, highest-profile weapon system program in u.s. history effectively says hold it, we need to slow down how much we are buying, we should all pay close attention. so what does this mean in terms of the pending negotiations for the next production lot? as i said a few days ago during my opening remarks on the senate consideration of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act, i strongly support the department's position. i think admiral venlet's concern are completely consistent with

the view reflected in the senate armed services committee markup of the defense authorization bill. as we negotiate to buy more early production jets, at a time when most of the developmental testing of the aircraft is yet to be done, lockheed martin must be held increasingly accountable for cost overruns that come as a result of bringing out necessary changes in the design and manufacturing process for this incredibly expensive weapons system. for this reason, the department must negotiate a fixed price contract for this next lot of aircraft that requires lockheed martin to assume fully cost overruns. i expect that this contract negotiation will reflect unit costs that are lower and for the last lot purchased, that the contract will share responsibility for reasonable currency cost increases. put simply, the deal we negotiate on this next

production lot must be at least as good if not better than the deal we negotiated under the previous one. otherwise, i can only conclude that we are moving in the wrong direction, and it will only be a matter of time before the american people and the u.s. congress and our allies lose faith with the f-35 program, which is already the most expensive weapons program in history. one thing is clear. the culprit here is among other things excessive con currency which is trying to develop an advanced aircraft at the same time as you buy production model aircraft intended for training and operations. the danger of excessive concurrency is the grand, enormously expensive lesson of the joint strike fighter program, a lesson we continue to overlook at our peril, trying to execute the strategy for the acquisition of a major weapons system that has too much concurrency based into it under

a cost type contract is absolutely a recipe for disaster. in so many different aspects, the f-35 program represents a tragedy. the air force, navy and marine corps desperately need a new aircraft to take the place of the current strike and fighter jets that have been at war for most of the last ten years. these well-worn legacy aircraft are coming to the end of their service lives, but we are saddled with a program that has little to show for itself after ten years, $56 billion in taxpayer investment that has produced less than 20 test and operational aircraft. a bill for 3/4 of a billion dollars and the promise of considerable, quote -- "heavy learning" -- yet to go. admiral venlet's message last year clearly conveyed that the path we're on is neither

affordable nor sustainable. of that fact, we are in total agreement but that provides very little solace. if things don't improve quickly, taxpayers and war fighters will insist that all options are on the table and they should be. mr. president, i came to the floor today to talk specifically about the f-35 aircraft. i will be coming to the floor again on the whole issue of what is unfortunately a cultural corruption in the pentagon as far as weapon systems acquisition is concerned. time after time, the future combat system, the f-35, the shipbuilding, the literal combat ship, there is story after story after story of cost overruns, of cancellation, of delays, of incredible costs to the taxpayer. we never should have gotten into it. we simply cannot afford to do it now. we have got to reform the culture of corruption that

pervades the pentagon, and we must reform the way we acquire the weapons and the systems necessary to defend this nation. now, i am not saying there aren't success stories. certainly, they are. imrap is an example of a success story. but when you look at the tens of billions and billions of dollars that have been wasted on research and development, on weapon systems that never got off the ground, when you look at what happened with the future combat system, a combat ship, now the f-35, there must be reform or the taxpayers and citizens of america will lose faith in our ability to defend this nation at a cost that's reasonable in these extremely difficult economic times for all americans. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: rom arizona.

mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: and that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, the reason i wanted to speak today is because there is a lot of confusion around something called the payroll tax holiday. it's legislation that's likely to be acted upon by the congress and perhaps a bill even sent to the president before the ent of this year. it's something the president is pushing very strongly to try to achieve, and there are a lot of different versions of it and a lot of confusing ideas about what people support and what they don't. so i wanted to talk about that a little bit here today. first of all, what is it? the payroll tax is the tax that funds social security, and it's a tack that's paid on the employee's wages. half of that is paid by the employee, half of it is paid by

the employer. and from the employer's standpoint, -- or rather, from the employee's standpoint, the more you pay in, the more you get out. when you retire, the less you pay in, the less you get out. that's what funds social security. and so as to the question why would someone not support a reduction in the payroll tax or as it's called right now a temporary payroll tax holiday, because what's being proposed is that a portion of that tax would not be paid. that represents one-third of the amount of the tax that an employee would ordinarily be paying is not being paid today. the president would actually like to cut that to the point that an employee would only pay half of the payroll tax liability. and i understand he is going to revise his proposal and not ask that there be any relief on the employer's side. but what the president is therefore asking is the half of

what an employee pays or 3.1% of payroll not be paid for one more year. now, the first reason that once you think carefully about extending this holiday is that as i said this is what funds social security, and as an employee, the less you pay in, the less you're going to get out. if you're okay with that, well, then, think about the program at large. social security is in big financial trouble. we all know that. and as a result, the more we take out of the social security trust fund or the less we put into it would be a better way to put it, then the less money there is to pay benefits for people who are on retirement. now, what's happening with this particular shortfall is that we're paying for it out of general revenues. in other words, what's happening is that since we borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend in this country, we're going to go someplace like the chinese, for example, and we're going to

borrow out of 40 cents that we want to spend, we're going to borrow -- out of a dollar, we're going to borrow 40 cents of that, and then we're going to put that money into the social security trust fund which is immediately going to be paid to somebody who is on social security. now, what's the problem with that? well, severalfold. first of all, as we said, the amount of money you put into payroll through the payroll tax into social security is what you get back, and if you put less in, you're going to get less back. secondly, because social security is already broke, that means that the united states has to borrow the money to put back into social security in order to keep it going, and when you do that, then there is less money in the general revenue to pay for other things. so yes, our general tax revenues and borrowing can make up for that difference in the payroll tax that's not being paid in now. but that means that there is that much amount of money less available for education benefits or agriculture or the defense department or whatever else you might be wanting to spend the

money on. the fact of the matter is if you're going to spend the same amount of money as the federal government and now you're increasing the amount you have to spend on social security, there is less to spend on other things. and i find it ironic that our democratic friends in particular would think that this is a good idea. i ran across something from the aarp back in 2010, and i just wanted to quote from it. this is a press release dated just about exactly a year ago, december 7, 2010, by thomas bethel, and he notes with respect to -- and the subject is -- "what the payroll tax cut means for social security." he quotes nancy altman who is coordinator for social security works, who, as he said, it describes the worst-case scenario. she thinks this cut could well become permanent. i'm quoting now from his writing." if that happens, social security's long-term shortfall could double over 75 years, she

says, and political pressure to downsize the program could mount. that could lead to converting social security from a universal insurance program to a welfare program. with the numerous drawbacks of programs for the poor, including low public support. if this scenario unfolds, says altman, it's goodbye social security." so her conclusion is -- his conclusion is there is little doubt that reducing the payroll tax carries a risk. so that's the first reason i think one should be very careful about just deciding that since tax cuts are usually appreciated by people, that therefore this is one that we should extend even though it's just temporary, and that brings up the second point. it can be argued that this is a very bad economic policy. there's no evidence that this temporary tax cut has actually produced any new jobs, which is the whole idea. in fact, our economy has decelerated. in 2010, we had a 2.8% g.d.p. growth.

we're now down to just over 1% and unemployment remains stubbornly high. in fact, i just thought i would quote from a commentary of ed gillespie on fox news sunday, yesterday, he was asked a question by chris wallace about the payroll tax, and he -- i will just quote what he said. he said, first of all, 50,000 of those jobs, meaning the jobs that are -- that have been created now in the economy over the last quarter or last month, 50,000 of those jobs are retail jobs that likely would be temporary for the holiday season. on top of that, for every two people who found a new job, five people left the work force entirely, which is part of a continuing pattern. in fact, if the labor force today were the same size as it was when president obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11%, so shrinking the labor force is not the right way to bring down the unemployment

rate. the point is a lot of people have just stopped looking for jobs. that's one reason why the unemployment rate actually went down. there are plenty of economists who will tell you that reducing the payroll tax is not a good way to create jobs. i'm just going to quote from three or four here. as taxes go, i'm quoting now, the payroll tax is a poor choice of jobs are the objective. art laffer, "the economist," last day of october this year. economists says hiring is a long-term contract and this is a short-term stimulus, meaning the temporary payroll tax holiday. neil dudden, a communist with bank of america at merrill lynch says nothing that's likely to get done with regard to payroll tax is going to have a meaningful impact in terms of lowering the unemployment rate and creating jobs. bruce bartlett in "the new york times" is quoted in august of this year, "there is no evidence

that the payroll tax has done anything, either to stimulate spending or hiring." article in the "new york post" by andrew biggs, this is some time ago now, the payroll tax holiday is a dubious idea, he said. and blienl, charles bhahouse, which is a real expert on social security and economic research fellow at stanford hoover institution says, and i quote -- "taxing real -- taking real tax renee way from social security and issuing debt in its place, the policy now in effect, is the worst of all worlds, both for the program and for the budget." so it doesn't stimulate the economy, doesn't produce jobs, and it creates a problem -- budgetary problem for social security itself. now, i also believe -- the third point here is that it can be bad tax policy. i note from a "wall street journal" editorial dated december 2 -- here's the beginning of it -- "so, here's the latest democratic job growth

-- growth plan. pay for a temporary tax cut that has already proven not to create jobs with a permanent tax increase that's almost -- that almost certainly will cost jobs. that's the e the essence of sene majority leader harry reid's plan to finance a payroll tax cut with a 2.5 income tax cut." that's the point, mr. president. the surtax is in reality a new tax, primarily hits small business owners. that's who creates the jobs. almost all of the new net jobs created since the 1980's are in small businesses, creates about 70% of the new jobs, most of them coming out of the recessionary time that we're in. and what does treasury say about the people who would be hit by this surtax? well, treasury estimates 392,000 returns have an income over $1 million.

and of that, 311,000 are class classified as business owners. about 80% of the people who would get hit about this surtax are the very job creators that we're hoping will invest their money into the businesses that will create new jobs. how do you creat new jobs by tag earnings away from the employers who are creating the jobs? so, third, it is bad tax policy. now, fourth, the democrats argue that, well, the wealthy aren't paying their fair share and this, too, is something that just doesn't strand up to scrutiny. these are from the internal revenue service, their tables. the top earners pay the bulk of the taches in this country. we have the most progressive income tax system of all of the countries in the oecd. the top 1% in our country earn 20% of all the income. that's pretty good. but they pay 38% of all of the income taxes. the top 2% earns just about 28%

of the total income. they pay over 48%, almost 50% -- almost half of all of the income taxes are paid by the top 2%. now, some people say, well what about the payroll tax? ahhh, but that's exactly what we're cutting here, remember? that's what they are gate ago fax holiday from paying. so you got the top 2% of the people paying 50% of the taxes. what are the bottom half pay? oh, turns out the joint committee on taxation estimates that 51% of all households have either zero or negative income tax liability for the tax year 2009. so you got 2% of the people paying 50% and the bottom 50% paying none. in fact, the top 5% pay a whole lot more than the bottom 95% combined. think of that. in our country, the top 5% of the earners pay a lot more than the bottom 95% combined.

so the question is then, is it really fair to say about the united states progressive income tax code that the wealthy don't pay their -- quote -- "fair share" -- and the top one% pays 28%, the top 2% almost half of all taxes? i think that's a canard -- i'm not trying to defend rich people here, but what i'm saying, it's unfair to say that they're not paying their fair share. now, finally, my colleague, dick durbin, who i believe is going to be here shortly -- and i hope will respond to what i'm saying here -- was interviewed on msnbc on november 30. he said something that i suspect he would in retrospect say is inaccurate and would take bafnlgt but i want to quote it. he was talking about the payroll tax holiday and he said -- quote --- quote-- "jon kyl rejected td no. there's no way we're going to

impose any taxes on the wealthy people in this country." end of quote. well, of course, senator durbin knows we impose a lot of taxes on the wealthy people in this country. he simply mistake. i understand he simply mi missp. but it is a manifestation of one side accusing the other of favoring the rich over the poor. can't we ask them just to contribute a little bit more? well, we're he not asking if it is the i.r.s. we're forcing. and when 2% -- the top 2% of our citizens pay half all the taxes and the bottom half pay none -- when the top 5% pay 95% of all the taxes and the 95% pay the rest, it's hard to say that the rich are not paying taxes. in any event, my colleague, senator durbin, i'm sure would acknowledge that i have not said, nor has anyone said --

quote -- "there's no way we're going to impose any taxes on the wealthy people in this country." they're paying a lot of taxes. finally, mr. president, we extended this tax cut holiday for one year, a year ago. in december. we did that as part of an overall budget deal. the vice president of the united states, the leaders of the house and senate negotiated this and the president went along with it. and it was part of an overall agreement in which we said, we will extend all of the existing taxes, the so-called bush tax cuts -- that the rates that have been in effect since 2001 and 2003. we would extend this temporary tax holiday from the payroll tax cut. we would extend all of that. and i supported that. that frankly was the right thing to do. to extend all of these existing rates. the country at that point could

not have withstood an increase of taxes of over $4 trillion. now, if we can do that again, i'm all for it. i recall a support the extension of a payroll tax holiday. i'll support the extension of the payroll tax roll day with other things being done as well. the point is, there are times when it just absolutely doesn't make any sense and there are times when it could make sense. but because of the four other reasons that i pointed out -- that this is what pays for social security benefits, it's bad economic policy, it's bad tax policy, and certainly the surtax that would fund this is something that would very much hurt small business and job creation -- those are reasons to be very skeptical about continuing this payroll tax holiday, this supposedly temporary tax holiday. and we should therefore only do it under circumstances that in effect override these objections, one of which would

be to extend all of the taxes that expire at the understand of next year, at the end of 2012, and to include this in them. that would be a good idea. it is also a good idea to -- quote -- "pay for" -- that is to find an offset for the revenue here because we cannot leave social security holding the bag. and when we borrow all of the money from the general -- 40 cents of every dollar to pay for this lost revenue, obviously that's not a good idea. so if we can find offsets for it that's another factor in deciding whether to do it or not. and i believe that republicans will work to find offsets if we in fact are going to extend this payroll tax holiday. clearly you don't necessarily need to find offsets to pay for any tax or every tax reduction or keeping current rates where they are, for example, when they otherwise would expire at the end of the next year. some people say, that's the bush tax cuts.

that's right. did revenues to the treasury go down when they were reduced in 2001 and 2003? no. tavment ref niewrks the amount of money coming into the treasury, actually increased after the so-called bush tax cuts. so sometimes for economic growth reasons keeping taxes where they are or even reducing them in some cases make a lot of sense. in this case, however, because you're having to take it out of the social security trust fund, you need to replenish that money. you need to pay for t and that's why we need to have the offsets that i spoke of. so, mr. president, bottom line is, payroll tax cut holiday could be a little confusing. there's some very important reasons not to do this again. it doesn't produce a good result, and it can produce some bad results. if there are offsetting policies that more than overcome these bad features, then it's something i think a lot of republicans will look to. and as i said, a year ago i was willing to support the extension of it because we extended the

other tax rates as well. we do that again, obviously it's something that i would be supportive of. so i hope that this helps to clarify the debate when we zeal with this subject later this week and perhaps even in the final week that we at least hope is the final week we're here before christmas. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, edgardo ramos of connecticut to be united states

district judge for the southern district of new york. andrew l. carter jr. of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. james rodney gism lstrap of texas to be judge for the eastern district of texas, and dana l. christianson of montana to be united states district judge for the district of montana. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. leahy: mr. president, today the senate will finally consider nominations to to fill four vacancies in federal district courts, all of which were reported by the judiciary committee unanimously way back in september and october. all four nominees are superbly qualified nominees, have the strong support of their home state senators. in the past it has never taken three months or more for the

senate to vote on nominations unanimously supported by republicans and democrats like this, so i thank the majority leader for securing a vote on the nominations. i'm disappointed the senate republican leadership would not agree to vote on the other 21 judicial nominations that have been blocked so far by the republicans for senate action even though all but four of them were voted on by every republican, every democrat in the judiciary committee voted for them, and all but two of them had significant bipartisan support. we have a block of them not voting on it, it allows everybody to vote maybe, and not take a position on anything. mr. president, i think most of us were elected to vote yes or no, not maybe. most of us should have the courage to vote yes or no, not

maybe. i ask that my full statement regarding these judiciary nominations be placed in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and tomorrow, mr. president, the senate should be holding a up-or-down on the long-delayed nomination of caitlin halligan to fill one of three vacancies for the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. instead, for the seventh time since president obama took office 34 months ago, we're required to overcome a republican filibuster for the senate to consider one of president obama's superbly qualified judicial nominees. for some reason, this superbly qualified woman is being filibustered by the republicans. well, this extremely qualified woman, miss halligan, president

obama's first nomination to the important d.c. circuit, is a former solicitor general for the state of new york. an impressive record of private practice and public service, she is widely respected for the quality of her work as an advocate. indeed, miss halligan's nomination is greeted with bipartisan support and has since garnered endorsements of law enforcement officials and women's organizations and judges and lawyers from across the political spectrum. we reported her nomination favorably nearly nine months ago now, we have a number of republican senators who were surveyed who declared, gave their word they would never support the filibuster of a judicial nomination, never. they gave speeches on the floor, told the american public, told those people who voted for them,

you can take our word for it, we will never support the filibuster of a judicial nominee. well, with this latest filibuster, the senate republican leadership seeks to set yet another new standard. one more filibuster, president obama's nominees, these are the people who gave their word to their voters they would never do that. well, that was before, of course, we elected president obama. well, i guess the words don't count anymore, and for seven times they filibustered it. i think that makes confirmation of any nominee to the d.c. circuit virtually impossible for the future, and it's time we edge away from this dangerous precipice. when democratic senators cooperated to confirm john roberts of the d.c. circuit in 2003, we broke the stalemate

that had been created by republican refusal for years to even consider president clinton's nominees. we could have done the same thing, said we'll block roberts, but he said no, go ahead. like john roberts, caitlin halligan is a highly regarded nominee. she is unquestionably qualified to serve for the d.c. circuit. she should be confirmed, not filibustered. but yet again, we see senate republicans shifting the standards they use, and the arguments they make based on the priority of the president making the nomination. they say one thing when president clinton is in office, they flip when the president is republican and flop when the american people elect president obama. the same republican senators that blocked president clinton's nominations from even being considered by the judiciary

committee supported every nomination of president bush's d.c. circuit as they filled the ninth seat, twice filled the tenth seat and then wanted to fill the 11th seat. it was a judgeship they said was unnecessary, it shouldn't be filled when it was a democratic president, but suddenly it became very necessary when there was a republican president. but then when the election of president barack obama, republican senators have dusted off an old obstructionist argument about the d.c. circuit's caseload, something they ignored for eight years when president bush's nominees were confirmed to fill the tenth seat twice, the 11th seat once. but they have ratcheted up their partisan opposition. now they oppose even filling the ninth judgeship. all in favor of filling the 11th one as long as they are republican. now they can't even fill the ninth one.

with three vacancies on d.c.'s circuit, the ninth judgeship is the judgeship that caitlin hallism g -- halligan, not the 11th that the republicans filled just recently or the tenth that they voted twice to fill but the ninth. and here we have a superbly qualified woman who is being blocked by the republicans, by the same people who said that they would never vote to filibuster until this woman comes along, and now suddenly the rules change. the fact is the d.c. circuit's cases increase in importance. the court's caseload has increased as republican senators supported every one of president bush's nominations to that court. according to the administrative office of u.s. courts, the caseload per active judge has increased by one-third since 2005 when the senate confirmed president bush's nomination thomas griffith to fill the

11th seat. so when they say because of the caseload, the d.c. caseload has actually increased. the caseload argument is not a basis on which to oppose a qualified nominee such as halligan with widespread support from law enforcement. she is a superbly qualified nominee whose personal integrity, temperament and ability has been tested by lawyers and judges from both sides of the aisle. the many leading lawyers have worked with miss halligan, law enforcement officials and organizations supporting her nomination have all attested to her temperament, her fairness and her balance in addition to her he will legal judgment and qualifications. for the d.c. circuit. hollow contentions about the caseload for the d.c. circuit

fall well short of any standard of extraordinary circumstances. the only extraordinary circumstance is the court is one quarter vacant. the d.c. circuit caseload has increased, and yet the republican leadership is reversing the position they had about filling those seats, a position they had when it was president george w. bush. suddenly whoops, never mind that principle position we had back then. we now have a republican president so we have a diametrically opposite but of course principled position. so i would urge republican and democratic senators to come together. don't do any gamesmanship on this. end this misguided filibuster. she should have an up-or-down vote. let her have a chair vote up or down. impeccable credentials and her record as an accomplished

advocate make her nomination worthy of bipartisan support. so i hope we will end this filibuster and have a vote. mr. president, i would ask consent that my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum but i ask consent the time be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: montana.

mr. baucus: i suggest further proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, henry clay once said of all the

properties which belong to honorable men, not one is so highly prized as that of character. it is my distinct privilege to rise today to speak on a nominee that possesses such character. dana christensen. the senate will soon take up dana's nomination for united states district judge for the district of montana. to ensure the most ethical and qualified attorney was appointed as district judge, i created an advisory selection panel made up of five montana lawyers with diverse legal backgrounds across our state and across party lines. i said to them, just get me the best. the best four or five people i can choose from, i don't care if thir republicans or democrats, liberals or conservatives, guilty me the best qualified and that's what they did. from them i chose dana christensen. and the panel unanimously and

enthusiastically recommended the nomination of dana christensen as proud -- i was proud to pass this recommendation on to the president. dana is a fourth generation montanan raised in missoula. received his law degree from the university of montana law school in 1976. dana started his legal career at the billings, montana law enforcement of molton, longhill and mather. he then joined murphy, robinson and phillips. in 1998, dana and two of his partners formed a new firm in kalispell, montana, which has become one of the leading first for civil defense, business law, real estate and estate planning. dana has tried more than 50 trials in state and federal courts. he has an active mediation and

arbitration practice. outside of the office, dana has been an active member of his community. a member of the board of vectors of his chamber of commerce, a member of the university university of montana school board of visitors and the advanced trial advocacy program. over the past 35 years, dana has commanded the respect of his colleagues across the state of montana and elsewhere. dana has received the highest rankings from peer review organizations, chambers, u.s.a. and super lawyers. he is also a member of the selected board of american trial advocates and american college of trial lawyers. upon his nomination in may, montana's legal community lent their strong support for dana's selection. u.s. district judge richard sebol who was appointed by george george bush president george

bush in 2001 said i don't think there's a better prospect in the whole state. judge hadden said he's a good lawyer, a good man. in my opinion, ethically totally qualified. the district will be well served to have him. end quote. i've gotten to know dana over the past several decades and i could not agree more with judge sebol and judge hadden. dana embodies those qualities that montana and america need on the federal bench -- intellect, extensive experience in the courtroom, commitment to public service, integrity and respect for precedent and the rule of law. i congratulate dana, his wife stephanie, his wonderful children cassidy and ben on this extraordinary achievement and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination. i yield the floor.

mr. grassley: today the senate is expected to confirm two adish gentlewoman niece. with these votes we will have confirmed 61 article 3 nominees this congress. i want to note in the first session of the 112th congress we've now confirmed more than during the entire 111th congress, so i think we can declare real progress over 72% of president obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed. despite this record of confirmations, we continue to hear complaints about the way that this president's nominees are being treated. so i'd point out that in only six sessions of congress in the last 30 years have more nominees

been confirmed in a single session. furthermore, given the cooperation we have shown, i'm disappointed that the senate majority wants to turn to a controversial nomination next rather than continue on the path of cooperative confirmations. the senate majority leader has scheduled a cloture vote for tomorrow on the nomination of caitlin halligan to be circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. i will speak more about the merits of that nomination tuesday, but wanted to put that vote in some context. it seems to me that the scheduling of such a controversial vote in the closing days of a session of congress is designed to simply heat up the partisanship of judicial nominations.

perhaps that is the objective. the result may be -- may well be that such a divisive vote might have a chilling effect on reaching agreement on additional judicial nomination votes. i hope that's not the case, but everyone knows that in the final weeks of a session, that it's often filled with unpredictable actions and outcomes. with regard to the vote tomorrow, there will be some who say that this nomination has been vacant for too long and that this nominee is being treated unfairly. needlessly waiting on the calendar for too many weeks. well, such arguments fail to consider the history of this particular seat of the d.c. circuit, and of the record established by my colleagues on the other side regarding the consideration of nominations for this very same d.c. circuit.

this seat has been vacant for over six years. it became vacant upon the elevation of john roberts as chief judge -- justice, and that was back in september, 2005. following justice roberts' appointment, peter keisler was nominated to fill the vacancy in june of 2006, with a hearing held august 1, 2006, with a republican majority in the 109 congress, one would wonder why he never made it out of committee. well, it is not that he didn't have the votes in committee. the fact is, the democratic minority would not allow a vote. this was accomplished by holding him over at his first markup which the rules permit and as a legitimate exercise of the right of a minority and a right that this minority on our side

exercises quite frequently this very year. however, for the remaining executive sessions in september of that year prior to final adjournment, they either made sure that the committee did not have a quorum so we could not vote or they took the extraordinary step of invoking the two-hour rule so the committee could not meet. i note that a quorum was present early in one meeting but evaporated when mr. kiisler's nomination was the pending business. so basically the opponents ran out the clock on this nomination. he didn't get a committee vote, he didn't get the courtesy of floor consideration, not even a cloture vote like the nominee tomorrow will have. mr. keisler was renominated in june, 2007 when the democrats assumed control of the senate,

but his nomination sat in committee with no action until tfs returned to the president january, 2009. he was the recipient of a pocket filibuster. this was despite being rated unanimously well qualified by the a.b.a. standing committee of the federal judiciary, and possessing without standing qualifications to fill this position. so complaints about this seat being vacant for too long just ring hollow with this senator. likewise, when one considers the treatment of previous nomination to the d.c. circuit it is evident that the nomination of ms. halligan is not being treated in an unfair manner. in fact, her nomination is proceeding far better than many phenomenon natured to this court. by remind my colleagues that previous nominees were subjected