to the members were from the administration. did not get 60 votes for that opposition. we got 63. at the end of the day, that is why i went back to the notion. at some point, there has to be a negotiation for everyone that is affected. >> did you take the proposal to the white house? >> i do not know yet. we are working in good faith. we are coming up with a proposal for our colleagues. i do not know. >> the white house is not involved at this point. >> at some point, you will know. they have to demonstrate the sena.

they will come together on a proposal that is big. it actually takes care of this problem. >> could they ever? >> i remain optimistic and hopeful. >> the consequences of failure are so serious. >> a small bipartisan group of senators including mark warner of virginia is working to extend this period on the senate floor, he spoke for 15 manse about the budget -- for 15 minutes about the budget. objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise today to add my voice to

the debate that has been going on in this chamber about spending proposals and how we get through the balance of this current fiscal year and ensure that we don't end up with a government shutdown and some of the repercussions thaltd come about from that. mr. president, i represent a state that has not only disproportionate share of federal employees but also has a large number of private-sector employees that rely upon predictability from the government. and, unfortunately, these kind of lurching from two-week extensions, we are not providing that predictability. mr. president, as you know, i strongly believe that this is a moment in time for this body and colleagues in the house and the president and others to come

together regarding the question of how we no longer simply look at our deficit and debt on a piecemeal basis but take it on on a comprehensive basis, as so many both elected officials and financial officials continue to make. as a matter of fact, mr. president, i came earlier today from testimony that was provided by former senator alan simpson and former presidential chief of staff erskine bowles about the consequences of our failure to act if we don't get our comprehensive deficit and debt under control. this is a problem that's not going to get easy. every day we fail to racquet, we add $4 billion -- every day we fail to act, we add $4 billion to our national debt. unfortunately, some of the proposals are coming -- particularly from the house at this point -- the house budget plan does nothing significant to

address our long-term deficit and debt issues. mr. president, i travel around virginia a lot. yesterday i was down with our colleague from georgia, senator chambliss, where we met with literally hundreds of business leaders from across central virginia, and their message was clear: no more games, no more showmanship, get something done. and that "somethin something tht done is a comprehensive approach to our nation's fiscal challenges. that will mean, yes, cutting down on spending. that will mean, as we will, making our tax code more efficient so american business can grow and compete. it will also mean at the same time recognizing if part of that tax reform effort adds revenues, because trying to deal with this problem on simply cutting or simply taxing will not be sufficient. instead, the focus -- the folks

across virginia and i imagine across montana are saying as we will, this is a moment in time we've got to put everything on the table and we've got to ensure that we actually provide a long-term solution. one of the things that has been most frustrating, as i've more listened to this current debate about c.r.'s and what we're going to do for the balance of this fiscal year, is that the debate has focused almost entirely on spending cuts proposed from the house on domestic discretionary spending. $60-plus billion that the house has celebrated all comes from that one narrow slice of the pie. domestic discretionary spending accounts for less than 12% of our federal spending. you cannot solve a $1.5 trillion current-year deficit or the over

$14 trillion long-term debt without going beyond that 12% of our budget. and what is particularly, i think -- particularly challenging to our colleagues is the fact that in every day we fail to act, we are seeing not only our debt grow, but we are seeing the amount of taxpayer dollars we have to spend to pay off current interest rates, current interest payments, continue to rise. as a matter of fact, its speactded that at some point -- it's expected at that some point over the next three or four year, the amount that we pay out of every dollar collected simply on interest -- simply on interest -- will exceed the 12% of our current spending on disom particular discretionary spending. so all of this current fight about these current cuts that are being proposed, all will be subsumed in interest payments

that we'll all have to make as americans. dollars that, quite candidly, don't go to build another school to make another investment, to build another road; calendars that are not recycled in this country, but increasingly are owned by folks abroad, increasingly by our bankers in asia and a disproportionate number from china. so, mr. president, when we have the chance to vote on h.r. 1 this afternoon, i will be voting "no." i will be voting "no" because i think this narrow focus on domestic discretio discretionarg will not get us to the point where we need to be in terms of long-term deficit reduction. let me point out where i think the house proposal is so shortsighted. one of the things that erskine bowles and alan simpson said today is there is no silver bullet in this challenge we've got in front of us. it is going to take significant spending cuts.

it is going to take looking at the revenue side through the aspects of tax reform. but those two things -- revenues and spending aloan -- won't get us out of this. the third leg is a growing economy. how do we grow an economy in a place where america while still is the world's leading economy does not drive the economy the way it did even 20 years ago? we saw 20 years ago where the world would have to wait on america to get its financial act together. the world is not waiting now. china, india, brazil, countries abroad are moving ahead. if we're going to remain competitive, we have got to remain to continue to invest smamplet the president has said that we got to make sure that we educate, invest in our infrastructure and be able to outinnovate. that means targeted research and development. unfortunately, the house proposal which not only focuses on domestic discretionary to the

exclusion of other areas of spending, but it also focuses these cuts on the remaining six to seven months of our fiscal year, takes a disproportionate whack out of these key areas where we must maintain certain levels of inv if -- of investmeninvestment. let me give you a couple of examples. i know the presiding officer comes from an energy-rich state. he also realizes that we've got to diversify our energy mix in this country and no longer be dependent upon foreign oil. one of the things that those of us who have hallowed the benefits of the internet over the last 20-plus years are quick to point out is that the internet came about because of initial government investment through arca. that led to the development of

the networks that created the internet, that spawned growth in this country. i believe -- i think many of our colleagues on both side of the aisle believe -- that we need a similar investment in the energy field. we will, that was created the arpa-e program at the department of n.r.c. if we move forward with the house budget proposal, that will cut $1 billion out of the kind of basic research we need to make sure that we've got a full portfolio of domestic energy sources: renewable energy sources. i for one believe that it also has to include conservation, nuclear, increased -- continued domestic soi oil and gas, coal - all of these have to be part of the mix. but we have to do them in a smarter and cleaner way. to cut $1 billion out that have kind of basic next-generation research and development, the same kind of research and development that in the i.t. field created the internet, would be shortsighted and i

think in most business folks' minds. another area: america, we have to get our electric costs under control. part of getting our health care costs under control i means continuing to unlock innovation. the chairman of the judiciary committee has been working on making sure that in the life sciences area america continues to lead in terms of innovation. well, where does that innovation come from in terms of government dollars be leveraged four, five and six times? that comes from investments in n.i.h. unfortunately, the house budget proposal cuts $1.3 billion from n.i.h. funding. well, if you're in stage two or stage three of the next generation cancer development drug, to have those kind of trials cut back, to have that

kind of basic research cut back, not only in terms of american economic growth but the personal toll it could take on folks who are desperately waiting for solutions to the disease i believe is again not a good policy choice at this moment. as we move forward as well, we have got to make sure that we outeducate our competitors. no one believes that america's future is going to be based on low-wage labor. it's going to be based on well-educated, innovative and well-trained work force. i think we've seen and one of the areas that this president has not gotten appropriate credit for is the fact that he has advanced forward dramatic education reform within his proposals. unfortunately, the house bill will cut $5 billion for the department of education and over over $1 billion from the head start program. when we're trying to look at our kids competing against kids from

india and china, does it really make sense at this point if we're going to grow our economy to slash education programs if we're going to have that well-trained work force? so, mr. president, i do believe that the house proposal is shortsighted. i believe it doesn't do anything to really take on the structural deficit that our country is facing. i will continue to work i know with the presiding officer and i think a growing number of members from both sides of the aisle, and our suggestion is to let's go ahead and take the good work that was put forward by the presidential debt and deficit commission as at least a starting point and put in place its consequences if we don't act. that we will not solve this issue, which is, i believe, the issue of the day. as chairman mike mullen said, the number one national security issue for this country, to get our deficit and debt under control. unless we can broaden this debate from the 12% of domestic discretionary to include, yes, defense spending, entitlement spending, tax reform, trying to

make sure that everything's on the table. the house approach does not do that. the house approach is shortsighted. the house approach will not allow us to grow our economy in the way we need. i would be voting against that proposal when it comes to the floor, but i look forward to working again with all of my colleagues to make sure that we get a true comprehensive deficit and debt reduction plan that this congress can vote on and put in action. with that,t,t,t,t,t, >> joe manchin was also on the floor to talk about federal spending and the role the president should have. concerns with the two wildly opposing budget resolutions that will be presented to us today. i might just be a freshman senator but i'll be blunt. this whole process ds not make a lot of sense to me and i'm afraid it doesn't make sense to a lot of west virginians or a lot of our fellow americans. we will likely have votes on two proposals today, and both

options are partisan and unrealistic and neither one will pass. the first is our democratic proposal that doesn't go far enough. this proposal which calls for $6.5 billion in new cuts ignores our fiscal reality. our nation is badly in debt and spending at out-of-levels. in february alone the federal government outspent revenues by unacceptable $223 billi. we must turn our financial ship around, but the senate proposal continues to sail forward as if there is no storm on the horizon. or we can choose an even more flawed measure, a house g.o.p. proposal that blindly hacks the budget with no sense of our priorities or of our values as a country. i didn't grow up in an america that would carelessly cut head start and make the playing field en harder for kids born into poverty. our america shouldn't cut fundingor veterans or for

border security or for first responders or especially for our children without at least discussing the alternatives. the bottom line, however, is this, democrats and republicans are being asked to vote on wildly different proposals for reining in spending. republicans will say that democrats don't go far enough, and we democrats will say the republicans go too far. the truth is that we're both right. and both proposals will fail. worse still, everyone in congress knows that they will fail. the more important question is this: why are we engaging in this political theater? why are we voting on partisan proposals that we know will fail that, we know don't balance our nation's priorities with the need to get our fiscal house in order? why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations -- our president -- has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious

proposal for spending and cuts that heould be willing to fight for? how does that make sense? the truth of the matter is this: this debate, as important as it is, will not be decided by house republicans or by senate democrats, negotiating with each other or past each other. the debate will be decided when the president leads these tough negotiations, and right now that's not happening. i know it's not easy, and i know that it takes compromise. and i know that it will be partisan and dficult. i know that everyone will have to give up something, and no one will want to relinquish everything. but that is what the american people are demanding. respectfully, i am asking president obama to take this challenge head on, bring people together, and propose a compromise plan for dealing with our nation's fiscal challenges both now and for our future. for me, when i was governor of the great state of west

virginia, like you, madam president, dealing with our state's problems required bringing people, and a diverse group, a strong-willed group of legislators, together. but i did because that was my responsibility. by working together, we were able to tackle the tough fiscal problems that our stays fated and we did it while studying our priorities and protecting the most vulnerable i our state. th bottom line is this: the president is the leader in this great nation and when it comes to an issue of significant national importance, the president must lead. not the majority leader or speaker, but the president. he must sit down with leaders of both parties and help hammer out a real bipartisan compromise that moves our nation forward and establishes the priorities that represent our values and all hardworking families. and i truly believe that he can do it. and when we finally come together and agree to a bipartisan solution, we will not only set a new tone for our nation, but we can start to

focus on what the american people sent all of us here to do: start working together to create a more prosperous future for all of our children and our families, and be the america that we all know that we can be. thank you, madam president, and >> the senate tomorrow will debate and vote on two proposals, one to cut more than $60 billion from republicans, and a democratic proposal to cut $6 billion. live coverage on c-span2 at noon eastern. in a few moments, white house chief economist austan goolsbee says the best way to address the deficit is strong economic growth and not necessarily cutting spending. in 45 minutes, a discussion about teachers and students who

might be affected by budget cuts. after that, president obama talks about his education priorities and a high-tech school in boston. later, the international women's courage awards. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the house commerce subcommittee on the internet -- on communications talks about internet regulations and efforts to overturn net neutrality. that is on c-span3 at 10:30 a.m. eastern. australian prime minister and julia gaylord -- julia gillard will give a speech to a joint meeting of congress. it will be live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> over 1000 middle and high school students entered the democrat -- the documentary competition.

c-span will announce the 75 winners of the competition this morning during "washington journal," and you can see all of the winning videos at our website. >> with c-span's congressional conference, you can follow every word of the house and senate on line, read transcripts, and see a video archive for every member. on this week's schedule, a joint meeting of congress for the australian prime minister. c-span.org/congress. >> austan goolsbee says the best way to address the deficit is strong economic growth such as increasing exports and not necessarily cutting spending. he spoke to the national association for business economics of 45 minutes. -- for 45 minutes.

you for everything you have done. for six years, i was on the advisory commission. they are the only by these in the united states totally boating. the issue is quality of our economic data. the meeting was in new york. alan greenspan filmed a series of videotapes calling for improvement of the economic da. thank you again for your efforts on that. i thought i would go through a little bit of where i see the state of the economy, where i see us going, talk a little bit

about some of the deficit issues. i was surprised to find that there was that more and your summary discussion about the importance of growth in getting us onto a stronger growth path. the deficit reduction is one of the two most important things we have to confront. a little bit on what the areas of weakness are and see whether you agree with those or not. i start by sayg when i look -- and my buzzing >> it is something up there. >> i'm sorry. let's see if we can fix this. does it was if i do not say anything? i said nothing. she said "better." as i look out into the

circumstance -- there it was again. we will live with it. it strikes me that we will go from phase 12 phase two. phase one was the rescue phase. i would suggest respectfully that you were not paying attention. we were very close to being in a depression. the depression was a financial crisis + steep recession leading to collapse of the entire financial sector which erased all self correcting mechanisms of the business cycle.

we had a financial shot better than 1929 with the impact on household balance sheets net worth, it went down more than 1929. the worst recession since 1929. and the financial system is close to coming unraveled. it could have been worse than the depression, and that the financial sector was far more integrated into the rest of the economy now than it was in 1929. phase one i can understand being inherently controversial. but it feels like that is over. we are transitioning to a growth phase. and as we ship, as the conditions change, and the private sector and the financial system both show clear signs of life, standing up, policy shift

of the appropriate response also changes. incentives replace direct government involvement. a focus on growth, on competitiveness, on longer run investments becomes totally appropriate. emphasizing the partnership between the public and private sector where we can do things to rely on the private sector to stand up and drive become totally appropriate. i do think there is a bit of an element -- if you have just gone through a period where you run into the burning hotel and taking children and throwing them down into the pool to save their lives, it is not right to evaluate them as if it was the olympic diving contest, and we had a little bit of that. [laughter] when the president came into

office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. we were trying to save the lives of the economy. that we got from pahse one two phase two is a compliment. i think we have a bias -- if only in our expectations, i do drive the car pool for a bunch of kids in chicago. one of the kids in the car poll that the guitar hero the video game. he had been 1980 addition, and i said, let me say that. and i remember all of these

songs. he looked up mortified. goolsbee, you are alive in the 1980's? [laughter] when i start listening to people analyze the economy, i get the sense they have that total for getting of any previous business cycle, forgetting what it was like at the end of 2009 -- 2008, beginning of 2009. if you had set in 2009, when we had lost almost 800,000 jobs, gdp in the steepest decline in more than half a century, that by march 2011 we will have grown for six straight quarters, added jobs for 12 straight months, spreads will be back to lower than they were before the financial crisis, i would have given you a kiss.

i would've said please, from your lips to god's ears. that is what we need to be doing. i feel like we have turned a very serious corner. urned a very serious corner. parlay i base that on the business cycle data, tt you observed every day. the gdp has turned around, the recession was over even before that. the blue chip survey keeps going up. in november 2010, not five months ago, the blue-chip for 2011 was going to be 2.9%, and by this february that is raised to 3.5%. if you look at the purchasing managers, you got strong indicators that manufacturing is coming back on the expectations of jobs. it is the highest in decades.

business confidence appears to be coming back by any of the measures, consumer confidence the highest in at least three or four years. separate from the data coming in on the ronger side, anecdotally, if you talk to business people, but closest they are to the cycle, the stronger their expectations for the coming 2011 and 2012. these durable-goods manufacturers, business equipment, high-tech sectors comeistorically cyclical, they have a strong this expectations. as you move toward the less cyclical industries, they are sitive but milder. that feels like anecdotal evidence backs up -- backing of what is coming in from the business cycle data. the one exception is small

business, which is historically quite a cyclical, one of the first to go down and one of the first to come back. they are lagging, not driving it. that is why that has been a policy area focus for us. the data suggests transition from phase 12 phase two. if you look at the labor market, obviously top of mine for a lot of folks, -- top mind for a lot of votes, something happens that is under dispute, as bad as the gdp is doing, unemployment rises substantially more than anybody predicts. it was not just my predecessor predicting that the baseline unemployment rate was going to be lower than it ended up being. all of you made the same

predictions and the private smith set -- in the private sector mistook what the baseline was going to be for unemployment. in the relationship of unemployment to gdp broke down from its historical basis. we had 1.5% to 2% more than what anyone would have predicted at the end of 2008. a major question as to why that happened. fundamentally those questions are around, are we going to get it back? will we see on the other sign better unemployment performan than the gdp would to the -- suggest? and with some of the dropping of the unemployment rate, is this sunday okens law residual come back?

one dynamic is heavily to the negative in the recession, which is now turning to be substantially in the positive. in most recessions, productivity growth drops. sometimes it even goes negative. this downturn, the exact opposite occurred. for direct cost cutting or for whatever means, productivity growth was gwing at astounding levels through the downturn. if some point, we have allies productivity growth rate to 5% or 6%. that is a recipe for a lot of people losing their jobs, and we were on the downside of that trend for some substantial period. that has almost entirely flipped. you have expectations of output at 3.5%, and you have productivity back to a board normal 2.5%.

if they persist, that is a recipe for a lot of people getting their job back or a lot of people at work working substantially longer hours. that is a trend in the labor market that we continue to monitor, but suggest something positive developing. that is largely why you have seen modest at first but continuing to strengthen labor market performance. when i hear some people say jobless recovery the way the last two recoveries were jobless recoveries, in the early period, i object to that. it is not in fact accurate. the 2001 recession ended and there is job loss for 22 months

afr the declared end of the recession. that is a jobless recovery. in this recession, job growth commences nine months after the end of the recession. it is much more like a traditional recovery. the death of this whole -- and have to infer this in my mind -- this goes down, and the job loss from this recession is very much on the order of magnitude of the last three recessions combined. that is how deep it is. but we have now started to come back. that is very different from going down somewhat and then not generate any jobs for a long period. i think our most pressing problem as we transition to face to -- phase two is getting the growth rate sustained. also quite critical for getting

the deficit down and dealing with our long run fiscal challenges, will which we have known aut for 30 years, have not gone materially worse in the last two years. what got worse is the business cycle went down the tubes in the iran the deficit up to record amounts. the long run fiscal situation facing the country is oriented around the aging of the population, the acceleration of health care costs, and thinking about things like the share of income pain by high end, americans which is at very low levels, mostly due to major tax cuts over the last decade. if you ask where will the growth relocated, and there is an argument made by some that if we cannot restore consumer spending

and if we cannot get construction back, where will the growth come from? i believe and i should have brought a copy of our economic report to the president. i did not realize that you're sitting near the table. ok. the economic report of the president, the very first graph lays out what is wrong with that reasoning. if you compare the boom of the 2000 cost to previous recoveries, it is ghly unusual, in two ways. number one, it is massively way to the to consumers -- weighted to consumer spending. way more than in previs booms in the united states. it is undersized for export growth in business investment.

exports and business investments are traditionally drivers of recoveriesbut not in the 2000's. when people say, if we do not have a rapid increase in consumer spending and a big upturn in residential construction, we cannot have a recovery, they are leaving out the phrase, like we had in the 2000's. but it was not sustainable. consumption grew faster than income growth, and they brought the saving rates of the nation down to 0%. that is not sustaable. residential construction fueled by a housing bubble is not sustainable. that inot where we're trying to get back to. in my view, the growth will be located in business investment, exports, traditional business cycle recovery, and we wanted to be like a traditional recovery,

a heavy dose of small busins expansion. entrepreneurship, that part has been relatively weak. exports are up 17% over the last year. that is fantastic. that is well on the way to meeting the president's goal, and it could double as -- to double exports over five years. business investment has been up strongly in various quarters and we continue monitoring that. the one industrial production number, durable-goods in january, it was not as strong. but that follows a very strong months. exports, investments, hopully small business, which is why we passed the credit bill, has put the focus on start of america. it is a focus on public/private to start and grow businesses.

things that in the old equation, we want the focus on. physical capital, human capital, and others. nobody in the white house wants to hear about human capital accumulation, physical capital accumulation, d productivity enhancement. but when the press this is out educate, out innovate, and out build the rest of the world. it has a economic foundation. it comes out of that model. i think a growth agenda is what is warranted. when we are talking about when the future, we're talking about rooted in a business cycle driven by exports, by raising the skill level of our workforce, and to me, that is the private sector sustainable

kind of growth. let us talk about the deficit in the issues of debt facing the economy. as all of you know, what matters is our debt to gdp level. and what matters is, as the bulls-sensing commission observed, not 2011 -- bowles simpson commission observed, the deficit is very dangerous because it leads you to do things that are not correct. we signed a tax deal in december in a bipartisan manner which was important. it gives incentives for investment, which gives a payroll tax cut to encourage workers and to encourage hiring, he gives incentives for education -- all of those all- important and everyone knew when they sign did with 80 + senators

signed that bill, it would increase the deficit in 2011, but we needed to get on the pro-growth path to confront long run fiscal issues. to come back and say, but look, the 2011 deficit is high, therefore we need to cut, is in some sense running -- completing what the problems are. -- conflating what the business problems are. the president outlined that he would release a budget that cuts discretionary spending down to a share of the economy that it has not been since dwight eisenhower was the president. and then he said, look, once we do that, that's all at one another and agree that is only 12% of the budget.

that is not what the problem is. if we want to hold hands and together in a bipartisan way think about the aging of the population in the acceleration of healthcare costs, think about the tax rates on high- income people over the long run, let's do that and a bipartisan way. but let us not continue saying that the problem is runaway discretionary spending, because that is 12% of the budget, and we are running a deficit in 2010 and 2011 because of the business cycle. growth is going to be a key component in getting the deficit down. before the financial crisis, that deficits may be free% of gdp. it goes up to something like 11% of gdp. most of that 11% is from the

business cycle. getting the business cycle reversed is critical to getting it down 4% or 5% and getting from that to primary surplus, it has to get -- come from cuts. but growth is fundamentally important. up until 1979, the united states cut the debt to gdp ratio by 85 percentage points. and it runs a surplus of only three or four times in that entire period. gdp grew at a sustained rate and made a big difference. we have got to live within our means. we have got to think about the entitlements, but that is an issue that we have known about for 30 years, and they cannot be done in a partisan way. if the argument was, why doesn't

president obama come rward and say here is my partisan plan to go ahead and change entitlements, and we went through a period in the health care bill, in which it was not -- it was a cut to private subsidies, the medicare advantage program, it was not even medicare. that was transformed into the president wants to kill your grandma. [laughter] in an environment like that, we're not having an adult conversation about the aging population and the acceleration of healthcare costs. we cannot be in that environment. there are hardeng things. in the fiscal commission, you had sitting senators from both parties say, look, let's hold hands and confront issues,s confront them in the future. it is not about right now. but you also had sitting members

of the house saying absolutely not. we will not have anything to do with it. in some sense, we have to see how this one plays out, but the present is committed to a strong budget on the discretionary side, which if enacted wouldet discretionary spending levels down to somewhere they have not been for many decades. the art two ways to mortgage the future. one is by running up deficits spending and leading the bills to your kids the other is by not investing in the things that our kids will needs to get good paying salaries in the future, such as education, investing in r&d, investing in business, and physical capital. both of those are important and we have to preserve and live within our means and make the investments that we have to make. there are such things as bad

cuts to make. cutting the things that are critical for our growth, that is not a good idea. if you will pull away the financial aid of nine millage -- 9 million college students in the middle of the school year so that thousands of them drop out, that is not a good idea. that does not pay for itself. that is a cut which cost you money. if you're talking about cutting things like tt $30 billion of terminations and reductions, things that the president already said we can afford to do without, when you are cutting things that are duplicative, wasteful spending -- when you are not in phase one rescue mode, you can afford to get d of a lot of things. what matters is not just some aggregate number. what should the aggregate spending of the government be?

lastly, there are clearly concerns. we are in a recovery, shifting to phase two, but we have not yet recovered. we still have of fear on the horizon that we continue to monitor. most obvious, the price of oil. a lot of people have in their mind the 1970's were when the price of buyout -- oil goes up, it sends the economy into recession. there is good news on that front. number one, if you look at energy intensity per dollar of gdp, it is 40% lower than it was in the 1970's. most economists believe that the sensitivity of our growth rate to oil prices up or down is lower than it was at that time. number two, and you saw announced overnight and today

that they are willing to use -- i was going to say, there is capacity among other oil producers in a way that at previous times when the price went up, they were not. nigeria and saudi arabia and some others are going to increase their pduction to replace the supply disruption coming from libya. the fact that there is capacity to address that is also the relative positive. but there is clearly a risk premium on top of stronger world fundamentals. as world demand for oil goes up, and world production rises, that drives the price and then there is aisk premium on top of that. the question is, how much comes from the fundamentals? there is one upside to the fundamentals, which is if

massive oil demand is driving the price of oil up, those countries tend to buy a lot of stuff from the united states. if prices are going up because of supply disruption, that is not good for anybody. if it is because in china they are expanding output -- china has become a large export market for u.s. markets so that is not all in the negative. i would emphasize a long run energy policy so that we're not havinghis conversation every summer. we know that in the summer the demand -- that in the summer, demand goes up. we are having the same conversation again and again, year after year. whether energy efficiency, domestic production, or other energy policies to alternative fuels, it is importanthat we think those three. price of fuel is one risk. financial problems in europe remain a concern. a year ago, it felt we were getting momentum.

the events in greece and some of these spooked financial markets, much like it does, so we continue to monitor the events in europe. third, the housing market remains in the dumps. there are maybe 5 million vacant homes, so i think it seems unlikely that with the reserve army of unemployed homes that it will become rebounding rapidly in the near future. that said, the impact of the housing sector on gdp growth, a major negative drag in 2008 and 2009, its impact on gdp growth in a negativ way has lessened if only because construction is at such a low level that even if there remains depressed, that is not adding negative numbers --

it is just adding zero, not driving recovery as opposed to pulling it down. those three from our perspective are the areas that we continue to look at. on the job market, is clear that state and clear governmentslag the economy six to 12 months. there will continue to be a drag on the employmentrospects. not enough to outweigh the private sector, but over the last year, the private sector has added 1.5 million jobs. the government side driven by state and localubtracted 300,000. those kind of numbers are negative, but approximately of that magnitude. i would close by saying, i think there is a source -- we have made a transition, a scary one.

i think there is an obvious transition we want to make to growth based on more traditional investment, exports, consumption proportional to in time, keeping the saving res at 5%. that is sustainable and broad base, unlike the ones that we have just gone through. the we put a focus on deficit reduction where it ought to be, in the medium to long term, and that we not mortgage the future while ing that by cutting exactly the wrong things, that we focus the cuts where they need to be. and that we obviously be mindful of those concerns coming. but the optimisc note of this -- warren buffett i got to know in the campaign was a supporter of the president. warren buffett says, in 1900 that dow was at 50.

if you ask in 1900, what you think will happen if over the next 110 years we have two wor wars, a great depression, a flu pandemic, a series of things -- list all the things that went wrong, all the challenges. they would say, the dow might be down to 20. [laughter] meanwhile, in 2011, we are hoveri around 11,000. mine accounted friends, that is not accounting for inflation. it would be somewhere around 1000. our standard of living is up by a factor of eight or 10 since that time. productive innovative capacity of the american economy is virtually unbounded. also in the economic report to

the president, there is a plot of per capa income the united states from 1820. basicallt is a straight line upward. and there is a downturn, and even the depression,ou can see. but it comes back to that line. the thing keeps going. you can see the downturn of 2008-2009 on that chart. but we are getting back on that line and we are growing. for all the hype about china, they could double their in come and we will still be five times more rigid in them. our workers of the most productive in the war. on a ppp adjusted basis, luxembourg is higher than the united states. [laughter] except for luxembourg, we have the most productive workers in the world. and anybody would trade places with us.

everyone would like it. if you compute the ratio -- this is the best kind of statistic. on tractable, checkable. [laughter] if you compute the ratio of the number of people who want to come to your country/the number of people that want to move somewhere else, the u.s. has got the highest ratioy far. you can look that up in the almanac. [laughter] so i think overall, very positive prospects for the economy. we have to grow our way out of this spot that we are in now. do we have -- what is our time frame? we have time for a couple of questions. i would be happy to take them. >> could you use the microphone?

>> this guy is a ringer. i know him. >> you signed off on my dissertation. if you need any help with that -- [laughter] i had a serious question. getting back to what you said about the breakdown between the link between gdp and the unemployment, it is supposed to be a measure of the output of the economy. but sometimes we proxy it by the input, which is not a perfect measure. and that is the issue with health care and education and a lot of our government spending. as a result of the stimulus and the subsidies to state and local government, that accounts for a larger share of gdp than it did a few years ago. is it possible that because of that, gdp is a less meaningful measure of our economic health

than even two years ago? and that could explain the disconnect between gdp in unemployment? >> that is interesting. i have not looked at the data so i do not know the answer. i would try to figure out the magnitude of what the shift to explain it. i would not think the magnitudes of what share of the economy is education would changehat dramatically over the two-year period, though it would break down okens loss significantly. i'll take a look to that. >> outside of this room, are we going to have an endorsement by the president of the president's own commission on prodtivity and growth, chaired by simpson and bowles?

the state of the union in particular, absolutely quiet. >> i do not agree with that. absolutely not quiet. absolutely. [laughter] >> are wgoing to have a more vigorous enforcement of a really broad program of both revenue crease and cutting o entitlements? >> this is what i try to affect -- address in section c of my remarks. and what i said is that the president stated in the state of the union, he said, ok, on the budget i am going to put forward a budget that brings us down -- he did not say it in these words -- but something like primary surplus, which lowers discretionary spending since dwight eisenhower. that is a small share of the

budget. he applauds the commission. and he says we're not going to do this and a partisan way. the only way will work is if we all hold hands and do it together. we will have to see if people want to do this together or go back to the pulling apart and granma mode. >> in the economic assumptions 2012, you are forecting real growth -- >> ok. >> forecasting real growth around 4 you have stated that growth is very important to dealing with the deficit. as i imagine you are aware, the

consensus forecast is somewhat lower for those years. in particular, the imf is more pessimistic than most seeing lasting effects on supply and demand and credit, as has been the case in several countries that have been through a financial crisis. can you explainhy you expect u.s. to be different? >> the forecast embodies the parts. the short term, to thousand 11, a 2012. in theedium term, and one is the long term. the long-term growth rate, our forecast is almost exactly what theirs is. it has to be locked in in november so we are actually lower than the private forecasts for the next two years, and then we are higher for the three years following that. for anyone who says, rosy

scenario, we are low and then high, they are high and then low. after the whole period, we're all on the trend rate. our fundamental disagreement is, the potential output being lower in the u.s. because we have gone through a deep recession or do you think potentialutput remains the same? our reading of the evidence, a lot of people will agree, that potential output is not destroyed. if you look at the graph of income from 1820 to the present, it is a straight line, the depression, he goes down and then they get back on the same line again. that is why we have a medium- term rebound. i have got to go. >> we have two questions. people likdoug holtz-eakin had

said some of the reforms are unworkable. a lot like for you to come in on that. the subsidies under health reform are unworkable. a like to comnt more generally on implementation of reform. >> implementation of the health care act is not the main focus there, but i do not think the notion of pulling whisked into exchanges, subsidizing people -- pooling risk into exchanges, things like that have been worked internationally quite frequently. i think the fundamental problem of a purely private system where you allow premiums can mean is what we have gone to -- premium skimming is whate have gone

too. a lot people get dropped as soon as they get sick. we do not combine risk, so we have major costs problems. in conception, it is not unworkable at all. we have to make sure the details are right. but i ink it is a good idea overall. >> thank y for coming. i will end with the real easy one for you. a few days ago the president talked about the strategic petroleum reserve, considered some release. you mentioned that there will be supply coming from opec. will some of the criteria be about reaching the reserve, and the think about this? >> the strategic petroleum reserve exists to deal with large international supply disruptis. that is why we created it. that is mainly the criteria that we use for thinking about whether we should use it.

the ca chair is not the person that decides to to use that. that is one of our tool kit of things. and we a monitoring the situation. it is nice -- it is completely full. it is in salt mines or something or in different places. but it is not depleted. that is an option that we have. and it is usually tied to the issue of the supply disruption. thanks, everybody. [applause]

le companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the vice president of the national education service, lily eskelsen, is here to speak with us. what are your biggest worries when it comes to education? guest: everyone worries that children will be forgotten. there is an investment, but it costs a lot to educate a child. preschool to graduate school. we are looking at the president making proposals that we would like -- we are seeing people talk about domestic spending and the cuts that they want to see

are drastic. they are radical. to say that your students have to wait until a better day for things like head start for a school lunch program, all of the things we rely on development to help cover state and school districts with, is very alarming to us. host: the "washington post with a. out -- post" points this out. what are you expecting to come out of congress? guest: we expect to be supported by the public in calling for putting children first. in calling for making sure kids have what they need, even in an economic downturn. if you are a high school senior and you are talking about your ability to go to college next

year, you are looking at cuts in pell grants and state loan programs, that means you do not have the ability to do something that is going to affect you for the rest of your life. this is not just a nice thing to do. host: how to do that in a time of deep deficits. guest: people are sacrificing all over the planet to make sure that we get the right priorities. kids have to be a priority. their education has to be a priority. if everything that the economy and what we are hoping to see in a better economy is going to be based on the foundation of the recovery, is that you invest in people. you invest in the students. you invest in college, high

school, preschool students. if you do not, it puts you behind. i think even internationally, we see what is going on. people are saying, we have to maintain what we are doing, or our education in the economy will never be where it needs to be. host: here are the numbers on your screen. we do have a fourth line is set aside just for educators. we welcome your calls as well. our guest was elected as vice president of the nea in 2008. here is one recent headline from the "new york times."

you seen around the country in recent months? guest: i am a sixth grade teacher from utah. we stretch the dollar until you can see through it. i had at least 396 graders in my class one year. we have seen -- 39 sixth graders in my class one year. we are seeing in several states like wisconsin, idaho, indiana, governors and state legislators saying we are less interested in balancing the budget and more interested in destroying your union and collective voice, to come and advocate for your profession and for your students. i have talked to people who have done this loughner then i have.

they say, we have never been under attack -- dundas a lot longer than i have. this a lot longer than i have. they say, we have never been under attack like this. if you take a look at wisconsin, which is kind of our ground see right now, all of the concessions that have been asked for in terms of the budget were made. there has been no unreasonable demands, no one is asking the governor to do anything that would break the budget. he is ignoring that. he is basically say, budget over here, we still need to destroy your union in collective bargaining, your ability to come together and advocate for what you need.

it is obviously not about the budget. it is a pretext to say this is all about the budget. absolutely not. host: john, republican line, palm beach, florida. caller: of i do not support the cuts for pell grants. when it comes to the crunch of money, we always find a way to cut money from pell grants, education, or police forces. when it comes to cutting for big businesses or other unnecessary things, we do not to do it. as a senior, i think we need to put more value into our children, because they are the future. when people like me are long gone, children will take my place and they may be working.

we cannot cut pell grants, because that could be a child that needs it to be the next ceo or engineer. it is wrong that republicans in my party cannot get it through their heads. guest: very important things that were just said by john. i appreciate that you said this on the republican line. what we are seeing is that this is not a partisan issue when you are talking about students and their education and respecting the teachers and the support staff that work for these students. we get as much support from republican people in the community as we do democrats or independents. this is a common-sense issue. john also talks about being a senior. this goes beyond our younger, a

retiree. people understand that education is all about the future and what we can hope to expect. i really appreciate the perspective of a republican, senior citizen, who says, do not cut this. host: next caller. caller: how can politicians justify cutting the education of our children, who are our future, and give tax breaks to businesses that are already making more money that today are not investing back into our community? guest: i think there is that question of shared sacrifice. we are hearing it from all of the governors to explain why education has to be cut. it is not just in teacher

salaries and benefits that are being cut. it is also the number of teachers. i have had a 39 students in a classroom. i know it affected my ability to work with those kids a one-on- one and give them what they needed. when you talk about cutting the arts, programs, scholarships for kids, a preschool and kindergarten, it affects these kids for the rest of their lives. if we were really serious, we would be looking at shared sacrifice. when you ask them, the teachers in the support staff and a lot of the other unions in public services have come together and said, we are willing to take these cuts in our own paychecks, but where are the deep cuts in the people that make millions of dollars and the corporations that bring in millions of dollars? we are not seeing that. host: here is a comment on

twitter. guest: i need to teach the kids that do not want to learn as well. i did my job. i know those kids a large. but -- learned. but those kids need to develop a relationship with the teacher. the more kids you have in the class, the less personal attention you can give. now parents want to know more as well. i want to be able to connect with parents in a more personal way. the year i had 24 kids was very different in what i could offer in personal attention than the year i had 34 kids.

host: an educator is on the line from kentucky. caller: i am a home school father. i want to bring that element into the discussion. i hear a lot about how the importance money is to education. this is. i have been able to do a lot with my kids on a small budget. i do not know if a guest is familiar with jesse stuart and if she read the threat that runs through, from this kentucky educators, who did so much in his rural mountain schoolhouses to educate so many future teachers.

it is not always about money when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of education. it is more about philosophy and attitude. host: at what point did you decide that homes: was the way to go and why? caller: i was leaning that way before i had kids. i was listening to a lot of christian radio at the time. i was hearing a lot of good results from other people who had home schooled their kids. guest: it would be nice to have two students. that would cost a lot of money if we had a teacher with just two students. i think you understand how important it is to have that relationship. many that decide to homes will their kids do it because they want their kids to have that

personal attention, as do the teachers. when i look at what i am able to give my students, you are right. it is not all money. you cannot buy the relationship that a teacher and student need to have. you have to have that attitude that says i want to inspire you, i am inspired by you, and we see that magic happening, whether you are teaching science, or the band teacher. we need the resources. it is not all money, but a lot of it is. it is the building, the facilities, whether or not you have computers and access to the internet, that a lot of our will schools still struggle with. you need to have the tools and conditions to teach. you also need to have the right attitude says, i expect all of these kids to learn. i want to build a relationship with all of these students.

host: texas duel over millions of state funding. here is an article in the wall street journal. how about your perspective on that? guest: when you look at what happens when you get a partisan battle, it is alarming. the kids always lose. you have a philosophy is, ideologies, of what the federal government should and should not be funded. you have money sitting there at

a time when people are being laid off, kids are being denied services that are vital to their future. we need to put the partisanship behind us. we need to say what the kids need. if this were for my child or a student that i loved, what would i want that school district to be able to provide? a lot of it comes from the federal government. we need to be able to access that and put it to federal use. host: what about questions of cheating. teachers break the rules to. they have a lot riding on the scores for these tests. what can you say about that? guest: you do not have enough time to hear my entire opinion on the testing insanity that is going on in this country. it is a corrupting influence and a disturbing influence.

i was a teacher of the year in utah in the 1980's. i found an old speech that i was giving to the rotary club and the chamber of commerce about in terms of too much standardized, commercial testing of kids and how much we were starting to build our programs about getting a test score. now it is that 100 times over. they are talking about the judging an entire school about whether kids get a certain test score. now they are talking about judging individual teachers on whether their child gets a test score. it is instead -- insane. and how to make sure standards do not mean a test scores on standardized test. those are two different things. ,lmost all of the governor's

with several exceptions, that have voluntarily accepted these state standards in math and reading for their students, and some amazing things are happening, because you cannot get those standards and it is worth saying they must be able to do this in a show their understanding of that. in reading and math and the sciences. you cannot do it with a guessing on standardized tests. i think we will end up with better tests and better information than we have right now. host: st. paul, minnesota. thanks for waiting. caller: i am a teacher myself. as an independent supporter and former teacher, the outcomes that have been tracked internationally over the past few years, even though education funding has gone up significantly make it harder to

justify keep putting money in to the educational system the way it stands today. a lot of the cost, one of the largest lobbying groups in the country and the union supported teacher federation, and i doubt if they are really lobbying to get more money for head start for the students, but they probably spend most of the time lobbying for teachers benefits, pensions, and salaries. i am the first one to defend teachers being underpaid for what they do. the benefits and tensions that started in the universities in trickle-down to high schools where you automatically keep teachers in is not a good thing for the system. i would hope that you would take the focus away from the discussion on what everybody agrees, to help kids, and illustrate the costs associated with the administration, the

pension, and those types of things as well. thanks. guest: good point. what you are referring to are the tests in reading, math, and science. the united states, we are actually raising our scores on those tests. we are losing our ranking because other countries are raising their scores faster than we are. let's take a look at countries like finland that are on the top of those tests and have been four years. they stopped their standardized testing regimen years ago. they said it gives them very poor information, they are expensive and is a waste of time. when they take these tests and they are given on a random sample, they do quite well because they actually understand the information. we are still training our kids to be tech -- to be better test

gasser's. we know what works and we know our unions have fought in district after district, saying, let's do this better. early education is key, especially in the poorest areas. you how to make school interesting to kids. we have done it down to these silly standardized tests. we have made that everything we are doing. it is not working. teachers understand it is not working. and where things are working, where you are taking a look at how to get better teachers, how to keep them in the system so they do not get discouraged and leaf -- when you take a look at what is happening in helena, montana or what is happening in seattle, they have said, let's not concentrate on standardized tests. let's concentrate on getting the best people here and have them design something for the school. they move away from

standardization and toward something better. host: here is a twitter message. guest: i'm not sure how teachers' unions affect could -- student loans. but i will tell you we have fought like crazy to get a better system, not only for pell grants, but for student loans. i am a recipient of the national direct student loans. when i was in college my parents could not afford to send me. i worked part-time jobs and i did the best i could. what we are seeing is skyrocketing tuition and that is happening because of the cutbacks on the state level and the federal level sought as we get -- and the federal level as we get less and less assistance.

the burden is on the back of the students who have to take out these horrendous loans. host: here is another one. guest: there is almost an honoring of what a test can tell you. it is almost like it becomes this sacred, religious thing that you have to have a test, a standardized commercial test to tell you if it is a good teacher or a bad teacher, a good student or a bad student. there's so much more to what we do that what would never fit on a commercial standardized tests. that said, absolutely, teachers should have to pass tests and standards to become a teacher. if you go back to what we saw in finland, i actually saw someone who was teaching in finland and made a beeline to her and said, we are struggling with teacher

quality. how you evaluate an effective teacher when someone is not doing a good job? in finland, when you have a poor teacher, how you get rid of a bad teacher? and she looked at me like i had two heads. she said, are you telling me you have a process that allows you to hire a bad teacher? it was a different way to look at this for me. i understood then. allot of states are breaking down the standards of what it means to be a qualified, prepared teacher and they are letting people who are not prepared become teachers. if i think we need to look at the entire system. how'd you get the best people in there? help you recruit the best people? how do you prepare them and make sure they know what they are doing before you put them in front of real students? and how you constantly, and yearly evaluate them so they are constantly improving?

we keep saying we need to go find bad teachers. we need to find a great teachers and keep them. and we need an evaluation system that supports them. if you get somebody that does not belong there, you need to have a system of their dismissal where you remove people that are not doing a good job -- of fair dismissal where you remove people that are not doing a good job. but alongside that, you have to always be finding out how to get the best people in there. host: in d.c., hyattsville, md., judy on the republican line. go ahead. caller: we pay more in this country for education that almost any other country in the world and we rank the lowest. i live in the county right next to montgomery county that you mentioned. it happens to be one of the wealthiest counties in the nation. in my county, 723 administrators

in our system are paid over $100,000 per year. they never touch a clause from. -- a classroom. we spend more money every year on fewer students every year. i find that is the case. when the statute -- children get out of our schools and go to the university of maryland, they have to take remedial reading and math. they do not know how to read and to basic math and digram a sentence, or be able to write a simple as say, when they get out of the public-school system. i want to ask you, how does a child gets from elementary school to a higher level without knowing how to read, do basic math? because if they cannot do that, they can do nothing else. guest: first, we spend the

fewest dollars in gdp. if you were to take a look at the national budgets of countries as they are ranked, we spend very little. and when you get into higher education we spend a lot, but it is spent by families and students, not by tax dollars. but when you talk about kids that need to succeed, absolutely. when you take a look at those international rankings, if you were to peel off schools that have very low poverty rates so that you are from the more affluent communities, our kids score reggaeton of those international rankings -- our kids score at the top of those international rankings. the kids that come from very poor families score near the bottom. what we have to do is focusing on those kids that are being

denied what they need to succeed. we have at the nea campaign priority schools because they should be a priority. what they need from us is so much more because they have so little at home. they have parents that are working three jobs. a lot of times they do not speak english in the home. we have a lot of specialed students -- special education students but also need help. we want to focus in on those kids that need us the most. we think that is where a lot of the federal programs come in. that is where you get the special education funding, a head start funding, the funding for migrant education. that is whereon the kids are that are not being served in the school districts the way they --

that is where the kids that are not being served in the school districts the way they should be can get the help they need. host: spending and budgeting question. you're a couple of e-mails. -- here are a couple of e-mails. guest: absolutely, we have to look at where the dollars are being spent. i will tell you coming from utah, again, the lowest pupil funding in the galaxy. but we also had, as people would say, too many administrative costs. we have absolutely got to look

at administrative cost, but in utah we have the fewest administrators per student. we have the fewest everything per student. part of it is making sure the kids get what they need. the facilities, the programs, and you need a very broad and rich curriculum. that is the priority. the administration, all of the rest of it should only go to support what those kids absolutely need. host: norwich, ohio, for democrats. .o ahead, cartbart caller: what is the outlook for my son in special education? will he be prepared for the test in front of him, life in general, and higher education if he is able? guest: not knowing about your son particularly, but let me speak to special education in general.

i have always had a special education kids, resource kit in my classroom. one of the things that is hurting these kids, i think, is the over commercialization on standardized testing. i had warren, who had a reading disability, who -- but who was a very bright and young man. we were doing our science lesson and we were doing the digestive system. he was not going to be able to read the test at the end of the chapter. i gave him an alternative. i was able to use my professional judgment and give him some butcher paper. i told him to draw his little brother's outline on the butcher paper. from the digestive system, label it, and his mom was going to help him with preparing for this. i said, you are going to give the class review. i need you to know all about where the food goes and what happens and you are going to discuss this with the class.

you are going to help me read the papers. i gave him an "a" on the project and he deserved it. his presentation was perfect. i needed to adapt to the way he could show me the material without sitting down and doing a multiple choice test. that is what we are losing in the schools. we are losing the ability of teachers to use their professional judgment and find creative ways to get kids to learn and show us what they know. if we can get back to actually building on what kids have instead of focusing on what they do not have, i know that we can help your son and every other special lead kid -- special- education kid in the world. host: barnes, what do you take about the comment inside ohio and the budget issues you are dealing with their, as relates to your child? caller: i do not know so much about education in my area.

it seems to me that -- i just wonder that being taught at a lower level that they can understand, i wonder if he will be ready for this barrage of testing that will come his way pretty soon. is he going to be able to pass that? is he going to be given the right information to pass this test? guest: what i want to say to parents like you, and karen -- parents that have kids with special needs, the only way we will be truly able to prepare all of our students, not just special education students, but all of our students to succeed in a world that is very complicated is to move away from saying, you are educated if we have taught you to be a good test guesser.

the world is not full of 4 choices that you decide which one is better than the other. we need people who are good problem solvers, who are creative, and none of those things are on standardized tests. standardize tests were designed to give you a little piece of the puzzle. we are not against them, but we are against pretending like it's all a kid needs to know. we want to prepare your son and every person's child to succeed. host: jesse in dayton, ohio, good morning to you. caller: i have two, maybe three points. there is a triangle that we have to solve. we always talk about money, as if it is going to solve everything. i am from the generation of the baby boomers. i am 56 years old almost.

my parents grew up in the hills of kentucky. with an eighth grade education, i think they were more educated than some of our high school seniors today with the basic skills that they were taught in multilevel glass terms of three and four grades at a time. -- classrooms of three and four grades at a time. the education they got allowed them to continue on with the least amount of dollars and the least amount of teachers and the support is nothing like we have today in dollars and tutors and everything we think we have to teach a student to learn something. i think the expectations of the parents and administrators and teachers of why the student is going to learn, i think that is something that we have lost today. they say, we do not have the money. the we do not have the time.

but we have too many students. i think that is a lot of bull. guest: money matters. it matters what i have to offer my students. most parents want their kids to be savvy with computers, be able to access information. they know that is something the real world is going to expect of those kids. but i will agree with you there is an attitude that makes it magic. there is something in that teacher and something in that parent. when you put that together you have the magic. where that child understands they are expected to do that -- their part, that they need to perform, that they need to go to school nba and listen and do their homework. we have -- to go to school and behavior and listen and do their homework. when you put a teacher that

says, this is what we are going to be doing, this is work. fayed would not be called work if it was not hard to do. that is why we call it work. and you have parents that say, i will make sure the tv gets turned off, i will make sure they go to bed on time, i will make sure they get to class on time -- when you have accommodation it does make a difference in the attitude of the students -- when you have the combination it does make a difference in the attitude of the students. host: joyce, welcome to the program. caller: i taught in new york for three years, that is, in brooklyn, new york. while i was teaching i remember each spring we were given a budget of about $500 to shop for the students. i was so excited i picked up all

of these beautiful things for the classroom. the day when these items came i was so disappointed. instead of $500 worth of educational objects i got about $20 worth. all of the teachers, that is all we got. when the government is saying they pay all of this money for education and they are wasting all this money, i would like to know, where did this money go? because the kids did not get the money. we were making 30,000 per year. all of the -- were making $30,000 per year. all the things were supposed to have gotten was a lie. guest: i do not know where the money went in that case. i know the budget i was given was for classroom supplies like paper, magic markers, crayons -- it was $150.

i know where all of the supplies i did get came from. they came from my pocket. i bought them. i needed things for the science fair, i bought them. i needed things for the mother's day project, i bought them. teachers pull out of their own pockets. the last time we had a survey of our nea members, $750 per year came out of our own pockets. these are things we did not have to buy. no one made us do, but -- made us do it, but we wanted to. we love our kids. we ask our state legislatures for the a supply of budget so we can buy the necessary things, crops, art supplies, simple paper for the kids. we're often told know because they know we will make it up out of our own budget. -- we are often told no

another 21st century problem -- how do we protect or create a top level playing field where state enterprises do not distort trade our international -- or

international competition, the kinds of special legal support for the kind of advocacy that some of the state enterprises enjoy. again, a major challenge. this notion of state-directed capitalism has become quite appealing to certain countries, in part because it seems to work very well in china. there are a number of negatives. one of the things we need to do is explain to governments and individuals that this model that looks so attractive for the moment may not be so. if you are an emerging economy that the size this is a good model, you are competing for resources and the ability to subsidize with countries that have much deeper pockets like china.

that is an unenviable position for countries with fewer resources. to the extent that government provides a special flows of sat -- of capital to certain privileged entities that they own or their friends own, it makes it harder for young girls startup companies to get the resources and the regulatory and the land or other kinds of support that they need to thrive. this is yet another reason that the state-supported model which looks attractive for the moment may not be. people who work on this, the french had this model, the japanese had a model where this may play a greater role, but many have come to realize that that cost and continues to cause major distortion. we will have a long process of working out a set of common rules that produce what is known

as competitive neutrality. so that state enterprises do not distort composition -- competition. another area that is a 21st century kind of problem, the people who started the gatt and the world bank, the internet. internet freedoms of speech that secretary clinton has given, and i will give a speech tonight on very much the same thing -- the quitef the internet hais dramatic. if there is one thing that we have learned, the internet is something that governments, however they try, it cannot control. if they try to control it, to live that access to one kind of

information, they cause major distortions in other areas. if you try to limit the internet ability to translate retransmit political ideas, because it is one internet, you limit the ability to get market information or information about development in the global economy, to exchange ideas on research and development, across borders, and therefore the notion of the internet freedom and the liberty of people to communicate with one another, to exchange ideas with in the room countries and across borders, is one of the very interesting new challenges. franklin roosevelt during world war ii talked about the four freedoms, a well-known historic speech. we're now looking of one more freedom, freedom to connect. bayh connect, i mean to be able to exchange ideas come to be

able to exchange information, the ability to exchange views. this presents opportunities for people not just to get new ideas and learn more about what is going on, but for many people, it is absolutely critical for you can see this in developing countries where more and more people resource fully use telephones and pd days and other devices to get information on crops, information on weather forecasting, and a variety of other things. this is another challenge, keeping the internet open and sensible for the flow of ideas, the flow of financial information, the flow of economic internet -- information. enormously challenging prospect for most countries, to figure out -- in the united states, we've had the notion of freedom of press and communication for

many times. for many countries it is not in their dna. therefore move in that direction has posed a major challenges. we also need to look at one more great challenge the relates to this -- that relates to this, the desire of more and more young people connected to the rest of the world to achieve economic and political opportunity, to be in franchise both economically and politically we see this the least -- in the middle east and we will see it in other countries as well. this movement has begun to grow and expand to a lot of countries. how do we do this? does this not challenge many of our debt -- many of our ideas

about foreign assistance crestar he can provide ways of supporting entrepreneurs and innovators and small businesses, support businesses that create opportunities for people to get jobs. it is quite clear that people who do not see an opportunity for a mobility, for upward mobility, they'd received a lead very difficult lives. they become a problem for stability or causing instability in many parts of the world. rethinking our approach in terms of foreign assistance and engagement -- one of the things we do in the statement -- state department is have a project to support entrepreneurs around the world pre we try to connect them in the analysis with those of other countries. it is interesting viral networks of communications. if you look at one of the key areas that has been sole

importer to the united states, innovation. believe all the statistics that have been done, more and more will we are seeing is that innovation is not done by any one company or increasingly not done in any one nation. it is done by a researcher at johns hopkins are harvard or can tack -- a harvard, and they seeing martell the, or in buying the door. increasingly sculler will -- scholarly work on new drugs and new technologies, done by collaborative efforts across borders that engage not just people in a closed country.

all innovative cycle in the world has shifted from thomas edison working in the cellar to create an intensive dassn't beginning candescent -- incandescent light bulb. it is changing in accelerating the process and using the best talent from around the world. let me conclude on one issue they really relates to american policy and how american policy is to evolves in this very difficult and challenging environment. we now see a lot of people who look at global civilizations and regarded as a threat, something that has been disadvantageous to americans with respect to their job for a threat to their stability, all kinds of things. people are concerned about new

trade agreements, and to resist them because the additional competition, it brings people more concerned about immigration. but we have brought the rest of the brightest to go to school here. the fact is that we can either see globalization as an opportunity or as a threat. one of the great challenges for the world over the next several years is going to be on the scene the benefits of globalization and mitigate the challenges and the disruptive elements that also comes when the increase competition that emerges from globalization. we will have to do but, we cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that world relations

does not challenges for certain groups of people. yet for most companies and workers, the opportunity for future growth and jobs and the in comes an opportunity comes in these rapidly growing markets, particularly where consumer demand is going to be relatively modest. the demand for infrastructure around world far exceeds that, at least as in most of the emerging roles, then it is in the united states. i see a real historic challenge that the united states faces today. we can either decide that we want to in effect retreat from the world economy, or at least take only a very tentatively

positions, orst refrain from participating in international trade agreements, or try to shelter ourselves from the challenges of the global economy. shut ourselves from various people who want to come to the united states and create jobs or create companies and go to school there, or we can look at it another way, as the international is a sin with an enormous opportunity for identifying, taking advantage of a new mark. and opportunity for attracting new investment from countries around the world that have accumulated capital and are looking to diversify their investments just as all of us do, or develop their own

program. do we want to try to maintain our openness to the best and brightest from around the world? if you want to go to school here, if you want to come here to start a company or to work in american companies as we have done a past to take advantage of the international networks of research better increasing the hon -- increasing the quality across the research. or do we try to avoid this for fear that we are losing too many opportunities by sharing our knowledge with other parts of the world? this is the type to challenges i think united states faces today. and the last challenges international in the sense that it affects our ability to compete in the world, but it is largely domestic.

i think austan goolsbee it probably spoke about this, but let me reemphasize the point. we tend to walk a lot and be focused a lot on what officials are doing, and they are now plan logical rules. there is piracy of international property, countries like china that force the transfer of technology or innovation from merrick, basic chinese families, with a precondition for doing business there. there are a number of countries internet -- interested in counterbalance duties, companies when it comes to government procurement, all these things are issues. there were the analysis has to take the top position in behalf of this company.

intellectual property is so critical to the future of american companies. we are most of us thriving because they have innovative ideas and creative talents all these things are important for us to take very strong positions are on the that the rules are fair, that the intellectual property is protected, and a wide range of other things and we are doing that in the state department's and all other agencies as well. the matter how well we do in that area to protect american interests, the key points from an american competitiveness. of view is we do a home, in terms of education, in terms of developing new sources of clean energy so that we do not need to be as a vulnerable to

disruptions in other parts of the world, as we are proceeding now antiquated infrastructure what china and india and brazil and many other countries are building modern infrastructure the american infrastructure has in many cases deteriorated, or at a minimum, simply not kept up. how do we maintain an environment which enables us to develop new ideas and pieces of culture of innovation growing it also depends in the past to the pastdarpa -- it also depends in the past it groups like darpa. in the end, my worry is that not so much that china and india and others are becoming more competitive.

that was inevitable. these countries for years had not undertaken major reforms, starting to do it in 1979, and those reforms were bound, giving the talent that these countries have and south korea and many others. they were bound to increase their cap pad bridging competitive capabilities to become more important financially and commercially. this is part of the change in the world economy that was predicted. although probably not predicted, how dramatically it would occur, but nonetheless, the direction, the sign was clearly evident. the key. now was not live bringing our hands of the fact that other countries are more competitive or are not playing by the same rules, we should take tough action. but no matter how we conduct

our international economic policy in terms of protecting trade and other things, we're just not going to be as able to provide the benefits for our children and grandchildren and maintain a strong national economy unless we deal with these fundamental issues that the president talked about and the stated the union speech that i am sure that austan mentioned yesterday, to make sure that what we're doing at home strengthens the environment, particularly the environment for entrepreneurial business to grow, for business to come up with new ideas, for businesses to hire new people. that is a sound fiscal outlook, and we have to focus a lot more today -- the president mentioned that we are in the sputnik moment. and he was right. but i would go beyond that. sputnik was sent up by the

soviet union. now we're seeing the sputnik's all over the world. there is a sputnik from china and from malaysia, very innovative things and new technology. they're going up every day, every week, every month with new competitive challenges. we need to have a sense of vision about our own future to make ourselves a competitive economy, but to ensure that the companies that work here, the workers who have jobs here, the students going to school here, are expecting a better life when they go out. to give them all the opportunities to thrive in this much more competitive world. that to me is the big challenge. the chinese have a five-year plans and another of the other countries are thinking long term. we need to think what we need to

do now to make ourselves and make our companies and make our students and our workers and make our research labs more competitive in the global economy. it is an enormous challenge and requires vision and leadership, it required by partisanship, and it requires the critical mass of national understanding that we are in the challenge that we have not faced before in our history and we will have to live up to it. thank you very much. i am happy to take any questions that there are questions. go to the mike if you have a question. here we go. >> hi, good to see you.

[inaudible] we're working on trying to resolve any sovereign debt crises. suddenly in february, we saw this sweeping geopolitical event, the disruption, the scale that we have not seen before, and i thought this made the a good time -- this may be a good time -- [inaudible] the question i have for you, give us your perspective on how long the uncertainty may be on these events, and what effect could it have on the global economy? >> a very good question. it is a great pleasure to see a

lot of people in the audience. i have a chance to protest a paid on cnbc -- to participate on cnbc and others when iasasast goldman's. thank you for that very interesting question. by nature, given the nature of the uncertainty, predicting when it would end would be virtually impossible. we are now in a process where political change has accelerated at a very rapid rate, that has been -- there has not been in many of these countries regime change. there has been regime displacement, but what the new regime is going to look like remains to be seen. identifying and giving some clear answers to when the uncertainty in this region will be ironed out is, i think,

virtually impossible at this point in. the question of u.s. policy is interesting. there are preliminary conclusions that one can come to. one of which, a point that i mentioned, we have gone through several energy events. in some cases there were crises and others that were simply disruptions in either the supply of energy or the price of energy. since 1973, 1974, when we had the initial oil embargo. against the u.s. and the netherlands. we have really not taken as seriously as we need to, the need for a robust energy policy that reduces our dependence on imported oil.

it would seem to me that they should be yet one more reminder -- the past reminders' do not seem to have done it. this is one more reminder that we are vulnerable to disruptions in supply or price in deuced disruptions that come from the concern about supply, even if it is really not disrupted very much in the current environment. there are market concerns or concerns that people have that pushed the market up that are not immediately supply-related. the second point, the way we provide our assistance to a country really needs to involve " one could call support-

inclusive agreed to make sure that when we provide assistance or advice or when the world bank or other institutions do, we find ways to ensure that more and more people are included in the benefit of that growth, and that is particularly true when it comes to younger people in many of these countries. if you look at egypt, it has the second-largest number of college-educated young people as a portion of its unemployed. the first is the philippines, but the philippines' export a lot of their people and work around the world. egypt does the same to a degree that we have seen in libya, egyptians going to libya to work, but there are a lot of disenfranchised youth in egypt. one of the things we need to do is focus our foreign assistance programs on ways of helping

these countries to enfranchise these people, give them opportunities both in the political area as well as the economic area. this is just another, i think, fairly reasonable assumption to make about the kind of things we need to do. the broader point is that we also have to recognize that when you get into these periods of very major change, it's very hard to know when the yen or what the final conclusion looks like or if you can expect a final conclusion anytime within the next five years or 15 years. not to say that the destruction we see right now last that long, but what sets in motion it is difficult to predict. one was asked whether what the

implications of the french revolution were, 30 years ago, and he said it was too soon to tell. [laughter] i think that is the answer i would give here -- too soon to tell. when you have these revolutions or major out followings of public disenchantment with the current regime, they can lead in a variety of directions. i'll give you an example. from the last 25 years, i had an opportunity to meet with the president, the foreign minister under gorbachev, when the soviet union became russia and you had this out flow of support. their view was that if you allow

a little bit more freedom, why are you going to see? he said, well, he did not anticipate there would be this massive democratic movement. they assumed that you would have a lot of little gorbachevs, people who could still keep the power of the state in the hands of relatively few people, but what happened was that you had almost all the leaders of eastern europe swept away and swept aside very quickly. there was a guy who was georgian, not russian, pretty close to what was going on and it is impossible to predict. aias let woolens the what he thought would happen when he started solidarity. and he said, no way. from an american point of view,

staying engaged, of working with the forces of positive change is where we have to be, not so much that we would have enormous influence over all of them, but that we can have a constructive influence, and that is what we have to do. >> i am wondering why the state department and our intelligence services were so caught off guard without any contingency plans whatsoever over these events, and what is being done now to not be that surprised when the next hot spot erupts? >> i think it is because, and i am not in the intelligence part of the state department, but there were people who understood there had to be changed in many of these countries, but i do not think very many people i am aware of who were experts in this area

anticipated it would come so quickly or the way that it did. it was not just the state department intelligence people. many understood that there were discontent from these countries and understood that there were pressures building up, and very few people, not no one, because there were some of these predictions, but very few people anticipated this. what do we do now? the answer is stay in touch with the forces who are advocating constructive change, make sure that we have very active engagement, and our ambassadors in the region meeting with various groups, both governmental and non- governmental groups in these countries, staying in touch with them. i do not think there are any merkel answers. -- miracle answers. it is ongoing engagement with the people involved in these

movements, involved in the desire for greater change, and how do we help them in a constructive fashion. yes. >> thank you for your prepared remarks. [inaudible] on increasing american exports, [unintelligible] reading emerging markets into the world [unintelligible] i am wondering, if i understood right, [unintelligible]

to give up some of the agricultural subsidies. could they be giving up on some of these farm subsidies to achieve growth in exports? >> we are in the middle of those negotiations -- probably not the middle, but we have been in them for quite some time. " we are prepared to give in that area it depends in part on what we're likely to get in a variety of other areas. i don't think we are at the point where we are putting new offers on the table. let me make a few observations. i think you a vast and important question. what happens to the doha around?

everyone knows that if you were going to get something you have to make offers. we have had a whole series of negotiation on what our offers are and what hope -- what we hope to get out of it. the bigger issue really, although there is an issue that people have raised about agricultural support, in some cases subsidy or other kinds of support, the bigger issue for the ability to improve the negotiations really relates to a point made earlier, when these to cauchy asian started, china, india, and brazil were not major commercial powers. they were trading countries but that did not have the kind of commercial power that they had today. what has happened is that many of these countries still to a

degree see themselves, or at least protect themselves in their conversations with us, as developing economies. and they do in many cases have large numbers of growing -- low- income people throughout their countries. and economic development is one of their top priorities. they have been very cautious and did some cases on willing to move to a greater degree of openness. therefore the united states being able to make progress on the trade negotiations, and i know that the congressman will underscore this point, to get these things through the american congress, it is virtually impossible to do without having much more substantial offers of openness by the big three emerging. our hope is that they will become of because we want them,

they are not in yet. the three big countries and some of the others that are in, we want to make sure that they open their markets to a far greater degree than they have been willing to do so far, because their markets are so important to american companies. but even beyond american exports, and that is the priority, that is what we're paid to do, to support american companies and american workers, and we cannot have the kind of export growth of the president wants, a doubling over five years to support 2 million jobs, we will not get that until we have greater access to the markets of these large emerging economies. it is just arithmetic. so far is proving very difficult to get them to agree to further open its. but just as interesting from other countries, if you are is

small developing country -- are a small developing country, it's more important you that the chinese in the indians and further open their markets. for many of these countries, we need to export, but for these countries with smaller domestic markets, he is even more port that they get access to these large in mourning -- it is even more important that they get access to these large emerging economies. they have to open up further if there is going to be negotiation that has a chance of getting to the american congress, and provide benefits to these emerging economies. that is the major hang up in the negotiations. yes, one last question. sorry. >> [unintelligible] how you feel the next decade

will move toward a state capitalist model, toward a market economy, what role the dollar play, and what implications for our democracy? >> that is what we are trying to better understand them. is the world going to move toward more state-oriented economic models, as state enterprises or state-supported it rises or enterprises that enjoyed favorable benefits from the state? preferential banking, things of that nature. or immunity from anti-monopoly laws, all whole range categorized as being state- supported measures. state-supported measures.

i think the prospect of the state continuing to play of a fairly substantial role in some countries is going to be there for a period of time. i am not sure there is much we can do to change that. i do think that what we can do and what we're trying to do now is to say, if you want your companies, your big companies to be owned by the state or partially own, like some of the big chinese companies, then we cannot tell you not have state ownership of your companies. what we can encourage you to do is to make sure that the provisions of that state ownership and the benefits do not distort international competition or trade. have some sets of rules that limit the degree to which, by virtue of you being owned by the

state or supported by the state, you will have competitive benefits or competitive advantages over companies that -- that are not owned or supported by the states, like many countries -- like the united states or many countries in the world. it is neutrality. you do not have exemption from anti-monopoly rules or preferential access, you do not have exemption from criminal activity coming you do not have, for instance, as a bank or insurance company, government in dignity that prevents you -- that enables you to borrow money more cheaply than a privately owned insurance company or bank. in many countries, or at least government-backed up enables financial institutions to give money more cheaply which gives them a competitive advantage. what we're trying to do is not

half -- and it is hard to do this -- tell countries where they can have a state participation in the economy are not, though we prefer the move toward the private sector model. but we want to make sure there are rules and disciplines that avoid their being a major competitive advantage if so. it is important because over period of time, if you have competitive advantages, competitive financing for example, it gives you the ability to go about economy and skills in your own market which enables you to produce wages or whatever york producing a lower cost because you have got these large economies of scale, but by virtue of developing economies of scale within your own market, to be able to be more competitive in the american

market or with american companies in third country markets. this to me as one of the very public issues that we're going to address. trade rules deal with subsidies, what we call special 301, intellectual property rule violations. it is much harder when you find a company that has been given free hand by the government or a dead-trust community, or the bank owned by the government indirectly has been told, the company a money at 2%, whereas the market is 6% or 7%. in some cases commuting go after some of these with traditional countervailing duties, and in some cases it is much more complex. many of these things are opaque.

how you judge if your company a , and you want to invest in china, for instance, but the government says you can only invest here if you transfer a certain amount of technology to a domestic company, or you agree to a certain portion of procurement from the domestic company. it gives the domestic company an enormous competitive advantage, and can be in many cases detrimental to the company, the foreign investor in that company. how do you measure that and clarify? in many cases it is opaque. there is no letter that you have to do this, but it is inferred in the negotiation that you have to do it. and these of the new 21st century rolls. in the last century, there were

very clear rules comic characters and non-tariff barriers, and now there are such a variety of creative means which we would call mercantilism , and getting these, and developing international rules and norms and disciplines is much harder because in many cases, they are opaque. we just do not know -- we cannot identify them. in many cases the companies will not go to the united states government and say look at what we are up against here, because they want to do business in these countries and they're willing to stave off a little here or there in order to do it. we have challenges to make sure there is this playing field, and even if there is a growing role for the state in these economies, there would be rules and obligations and disciplines to prevent that from distorting

global markets. it is a very big challenge for american companies that do not have these advantages. we will be working on this in our talks with these countries in the partnership being negotiated in the world trade organization. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i wanted it that wells fargo securities for joining us -- for sponsoring this session. tunis and dallas in september. thank you and have a safe trip home.

>> in a few moments, the national association of attorneys general looks at the supreme court in the form with two attorneys who have argued many cases before the high court. then the the washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. to the president's decision renew trials at guantanamo bay. a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. the house commerce subcommittee on communications looks at internet regulation and votes on a measure to overturn recent federal communications rules on so-called net neutrality. that is3 on is at 10:30 a.m. eastern. the australian prime minister will a choice -- address a joint meeting of congress in her first visit to the united states since taking office last year. she meets with which she met with president obama on monday. her comments will be live on c-

span at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> a new way to get a concise event -- review of today's events. every weekday we will take you to capitol hill, the white house, and anywhere news is happening. we will talk to the experts, the politicians, and the journalists as we put the day's events into perspective. the stores that matter to you the most every weekday, 5:00- 7:00 eastern time on c-span radio. you can listen nationwide on satellite radio, or go online at c-span.org. it is also available as an iphone at, and you can download the program every evening as a c-span pot cast. >> former actor solicit. general -- the four acting solicitor general says that the

president's health-care reform law will be upheld by the supreme court. he was joined by another former solicitor general, theodore olson, for about 45 minutes. >> we have an all-star panel this year to discuss the united states supreme court cases for this term. term. we are on c-span and my name is roy cooper. i am the attorney general in north carolina and president of the national association of attorneys general and to introduce our panel here we will have walter dellinger who is the chair of the appellate practice at all melvin ian meyer law firm. is visiting professor of law at harvard university and heads the supreme court and appellate practice clinic as an acting solicitor general in the mid-90s. he argued nine cases before the u.s. supreme court. the most by a solicitor general in more than 20 years. we also have ted olson who is a

partner in gibson, done and crunchers from the washington d.c. office a member of the firm's executive committee and cochair of the appellate and constitutional law group. a former solicitor general of the united states, ted is one of the nation's premier appellate and u.s. supreme court advocates and he is argued dozens of cases before the court and i might add that both of them have contributed to north carolina victories in the u.s. supreme court and i thank them for that. the national association of attorney general is fortunate to have dan schweitzer is her supreme court counsel. his principle and very important responsibility to assist state appellate litigators who appear before the united states supreme court and he excels at his job. my thanks to all three of you for your time and for your expertise and i will turn it over to you. >> thank you general cooper. it is a pleasure and honor to be here to talk about the supreme court again which as you said

has two of the premier supreme court advocates and analysts of our time. what we thought we would do is talk a little bit about the roberts court generally, then turned to some of the major cases the court is hearing this term and then hopefully we will have time for some questions from the audience so let's start with the roberts court. it is 2011. it is quite a different court from 2005. the court went 11 or 12 years without a change in its membership. over the fast -- past five years we have we have had four new justices. they are different in a lot of ways from their predecessors. ted, it's can you tell us a little bit about how you think a change in membership has affected the court, how the roberts court circa 2011 differs from the rehnquist court that preceded it? >> thanks thank stan and i apologize for turning my back on those of you over there. you'll have to watch the television screen but this is an interesting broom. dan asked me to give a little

talk about, or give some information about the court as it recently exists and i did some gathering of statistics. nothing secret here but i thought it was kind of interesting, as dan mentioned there has been for ben for appointments in the last five years. previous to that the court had gone 11 and a half years, almost 12 years without an appointment which was the longest period in history without a new member of the supreme court and we have only had 111 justices on the supreme court of the united states. 44 presidents but only 111 justices including only 17 chief justices, so it is rather interesting that we can't have in this country a tenure on the supreme court that is so long, the tenure of retirement is getting longer and longer and longer. the justices are holding offices for longer period of time. the last four justices who did leave the court collectively

averaged 28 years each on the court and their age of retirement on an average was 78 years old, so people are being appointed younger and they are staying on the court longer. and if you figure if you are on the court for 25 years, that is six presidential terms of the impact of a justice on the supreme court is quite significant. the court hears -- sees 9000 approximate petitions every year in grants 75 to 80 so only 1% of the opportunities presented to the court actually turn into a supreme court case that is argued. another change that seems to be happening over the last few years is a greater degree of specialization among the lawyers who practice before the supreme court. now there is more solicitors general. there are more arguments by attorneys general as you know. former solicitors general, saw the statistic the other day in the last 10 terms of the supreme court former solicitors general

had arguments of 357 cases in just 10 terms. and this term i counted, there has been 56 cases argued so far. in those 56 cases, 40 were argued by persons in the solicitor general's office either as a party or as amicus and 30 former members of the solicitor general's office had arguments, so that is 70 arguments and 58 cases. of course there are two of sometimes three sides because of the court. the average age now is considerably younger than it was before five years ago when those appointments were made. the average age of the justices then was 71. the average age now with 64. aid of eight of the nine justices then had been appellate court, federal appellate court judges. appellate court judges justice o'connor -- the same is true now.

eight of the nine are former federal appeals court judges. at the time of brown versus board of education the only one of the members of the court had been a former appellate court judge in the former system. there were two or three senators there was a former head of the fcc and there was a couple of law professors but now it seems to be almost everyone is a former federal judge. there is a remarkable homogeneity on the court. people think about diversity but all nine come from two law schools. six from harvard and ruth ginsburg went to columbia although she did go to harvard. six of the justices went to harvard law school in three went to yale law school. six of them went to ivy league colleges and if you look at the nine resumes, you see harvard, he yale, rinsed and mentioned 13

times. so people are coming from the same place. there are six catholic members of the supreme court now and three jewish members on the supreme court. 50 years ago that was unthinkable. so what has changed enormously. another interesting little statistic is four of the boroughs of new york city are represented on the supreme court [laughter] justice scalia is from queens, justice ginsburg is from brooklyn, joe does -- justice sotomayor is from the bronx and a leg in -- elena kagan is from manhattan. that means the next supreme court justice will be from staten island. we need that diversity. and if you think it is justices, justice is 18 of the 36 courts this year came from harvard or yale. 20 of the 36 clerks on the supreme court this year had previously clerked on the d.c. circuit for the second circuit

or got 20 out of the 36 from those two circuits. and 20 of the 36 came from eight specific retro court judges so you will see that the justices and the clerks and the lawmaking in the supreme court is all coming from the same place. as you may like that if you are from harvard or yale and you may not think it is so good if you are from the west coast. three women on the supreme court all from new york city. isn't that amazing? and then one more final fact and i will quit boring you with statistics. the supreme court has issued 22 opinion so far this term. as is sometimes the case earlier in the term, you see these five five-4 decisions at the end of the term and more unanimity because it is easier to write opinions when everybody is in agreement. but it seems to be even more remarkable is here. only 10 dissents, 22 times nine or eight in many cases because

justice kagan has been recused in 15 of the 22 but only 10 of 22 cases. all the justices have written two or three opinions for the court except justice thomas. he hasn't written a single one for the court yet this term and here we are in the middle of march so to speak so there are some demographics on the supreme court that tell us a little bit about what the court is in. >> a couple of comments on ted's very interesting statistics. the first is the fact that they for judges to step down and served an average of 28 years, i think is unfortunate. i think five or six presidential terms is too long for a justice to sit. it is a combination of life tenure and his desire to appoint the younger. >> you know you are on c-span so the justices that are their --

[laughter] >> anything critical i would say each of the nine is an exception. [laughter] but i do think appointing a justice at a young age, that is i don't think anybody should have that responsibility that has not yet had his or her first midlife crisis. at least you gain some empathy and understanding for the weaknesses of the human condition more than young people have so i think that is unfortunate. i do think that the narrow range of background on the courts, they tend to be overwhelmingly judicial/academic. professors like ginsburg, kagan, it canady, scalia. we see that pattern. what we don't have on the court since justice o'connor stepped down is any justice who has ever held elected public office, and

i think that is quite strikingly different from the brown court which as ted mentioned had three former jena senators and the governor of california who would then the vice presidential nominee on the ticket that was expected to win in 1948 are expected to be -- there were at least three justices on that court, maybe four who were plausible -- my possible presidential contenders. i think sanders o'connor brought that to the court having been a state senator in arizona happening one elected office, having cobble together complicated legislative majorities. so i think it is led to a court that has in my view too little respect for politics. the court thinks more about doctrine and less about workability, so i think in that sense i would like to see

whatever party or ideology the breadth of the court expanded. >> justice scalia has actually commented on that in one of his opinions or more of his opinions calling this rule elite, as if we are all coming from the same small law school, new england or northeastern elite and we are passing down the laws for the rest of the country. he commented on that. of course he is part of that culture and so. >> think you wanted to comment reitzig duly honor to jewish justices, justice sotomayor and kagan. they continue a trend with the possible exception of the department of justice alito. every justice that has been named to the court i believe since justice scalia has been a nonactive -- or argument of the justice he or she replaced to the point that it is getting to be a virtual cacophony up there. i'm a